 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/7/2010 9:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 3:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
"What part of "WE'VE SEEN WHAT MARXISM DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" does he not remember?"
Wait...we have? When did this happen? What does marxism do?
As a side note, Marxism is a very broad term. much like "Christian" is a broad term. There are all sorts of flavors and degrees of Marxism, much like there are of Christianity. Don't fall victim the essentialist fallacy, it usually ends badly.
I can certainly see someone like Hitchens say something a long the lines of "WE'VE SEEN WHAT CHRISTIANITY DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" in reference to Christendom in Europe in the height of it's infighting, murders, bigotry, oppression, and general distastefulness.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree on how wrong such a sentiment would be.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/7/2010 3:10:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2010 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel M said...
Starkman,
"What part of "WE'VE SEEN WHAT MARXISM DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" does he not remember?"
Wait...we have? When did this happen? What does marxism do?
As a side note, Marxism is a very broad term. much like "Christian" is a broad term. There are all sorts of flavors and degrees of Marxism, much like there are of Christianity. Don't fall victim the essentialist fallacy, it usually ends badly.
I can certainly see someone like Hitchens say something a long the lines of "WE'VE SEEN WHAT CHRISTIANITY DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" in reference to Christendom in Europe in the height of it's infighting, murders, bigotry, oppression, and general distastefulness.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree on how wrong such a sentiment would be.
Hey, Daniel,
First, economically the issue is not Marxism compared to Christianity. The issue is that ALL economic systems operate defectively because of the evil found in the human heart. When I said that we've seen what Marxism has done, I was speaking economically, not spiritually—Christianity isn't the reason this country is in economic dire straights, so there's no economic comparison found, therefore, between Marxism and Christianity. That was my point.
From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=marxism:
Marxism (the economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism)
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
Economically, just ask the people who lived through Marxism and Communism (those, that is, who were the brunt of its fruit: the landslide majority of the people, that is) if they thought they got a square deal and something of an answer to Capitalism's failures. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/7/2010 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Like all socialists, Harvey operates in bad faith.
Humans act. The praxeological starting point that Austrian economists keep pointing to...though the Austrians are marginalized by interventionalist "capitalists" and socialists...much like open theists are marginalized by Arminians and Calvinists.
Any attempt to deny the fact that humans act is an act itself.
Whether or not persons have any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course of argumentation.
Justification—proof, conjecture, refutation—is argumentative justification. Anyone who denied this proposition
would become involved in a performative contradiction because his denial would itself constitute an argument. Even an ethical relativist must accept this first proposition, which has been referred to as the a priori of argumentation.
Only if both parties to a conflict are capable of engaging in argumentation with one another can one speak of a
moral problem and is the question of whether or not there exists a solution meaningful.
It follows from the a priori of argumentation that everything that must be presupposed in the course of an argumentation—
as the logical and praxeological precondition of argumentation—cannot in turn be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without one becoming thereby entangled in an internal (performative) contradiction. Propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating propositions but constitute a specific human activity.
Argumentation between two parties requires that both possess, and mutually recognize each other as possessing, exclusive control over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal cords, etc.) as well as the standing room occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything and expect the other party to convince himself of the validity of this proposition or
else deny it and propose something else unless his and his opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and standing rooms were already presupposed and assumed to be valid. In fact, it is precisely this mutual recognition of the proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in his own body and standing room which constitutes
the characteristicum specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one may not agree regarding the validity of some specific proposition one can agree nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees.
This right to property in one’s own body and its standing room must be considered a priori (or indisputably) justified by
proponent and opponent alike. Anyone who wanted to claim any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent would already have to presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over their respective body and standing room simply in order to say “I claim such and such to be true, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.”
It would be equally impossible to engage in argumentation and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments if
one were not allowed to own (exclusively control) other scarce means (besides one’s body and its standing room). If one did not have such a right, then we would all immediately perish and the problem of justifying rules simply would not exist. Hence, by virtue of the fact of being alive property rights to other things must be presupposed as valid, too. No one who is alive could possibly argue otherwise.
So, any system of ethics that does not have these libertarian principles at it's base internally contradicts itself. Socialism, in ALL it's guises, save 1...yes, Daniel, ALL it's guises, save 1...suffers from these internal contradictions...and therefore is ethically unjustified...
..and is economically unjustified because of the impossibility of economic calculation within socialism...i.e It sucks economically!
Also, socialism (except with the logically possible instance of complete contractual socialism of all parties involved...which has never happened and is unlikely to happen this side of the eschaton) has as it's primary methodologies: coercion, fraud, force, theft and murder. And so is reprehensible once again.
Capitalism...real capitalism...not interventionist capitalism...which is just a brand of socialism...is the ONLY ethical economic system in existence. It is ethical in the sense that someone operating under it CAN act ethically, justly and fairly...not in the sense that it ipso facto makes things ethical. As Starkman has pointed out...people are the problem...they can act unethically under capitalism if they so choose. Capitalism does not assure ethical behavior. But ethical behavior is impossible under socialism. Under socialism EVERYONE is a thief and EVERYONE is the victim of theft...and MANY are murderers. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starkman,
"First, economically the issue is not Marxism compared to Christianity."
I know. I was making an analogy which was attempting to show why statements like "WE'VE SEEN WHAT MARXISM DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" or, "WE'VE SEEN WHAT CHRISTINAITY DOES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH" are sketchy.
Edit: This would include statements like "WE'VE SEEN WHAT CAPITALISM DOES THANK YOU VERY MUCH". Because, like asher argues, there are critiques of what we've seen over the past century or so that argue it isn't capitalism.
"The issue is that ALL economic systems operate defectively because of the evil found in the human heart"
I certainly would agree with this. The only solution to the problems of the world are compete self-sacrifice to Christ. To paraphrase Terry Eagleton "if you're a follower of Christ and don't end up being killed, it seems you have some explaining to do". Christianity breaks down economic systems because Christianity's "economics" is centered around gift-giving.
"Economically, just ask the people who lived through Marxism and Communism (those, that is, who were the brunt of its fruit: the landslide majority of the people, that is) if they thought they got a square deal and something of an answer to Capitalism's failures."
This is just it, Marxism, and Communism, as commonly perceived (either of the Russian or Chinese variety) are very different ideologically. For example, Communism, for Marx, is birth out of a revolution that takes place within an society that has developed infrastructure using capitalistic economic principles.Neither Russia or China persued this. They had their "revolution" (which was a pale shadow of what Marx calls the revoltuion" and THEN developed. Further, once the leaders of the revolution obtained power, they never released it. There are very few things ideologically similar about the communism of Russia and China and the work of Karl Marx. Sure, the rhetoric over-laps. But how much does that really tell us?Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/7/2010 7:04:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
I'm with you on the principles of argumentation and the ownership of self (which is a way of saying, people have agency). However, you say:
"So, any system of ethics that does not have these libertarian principles at it's base internally contradicts itself. Socialism, in ALL it's guises, save 1...yes, Daniel, ALL it's guises, save 1...suffers from these internal contradictions...and therefore is ethically unjustified..."
I'd love to know what the alluded contradictions are, or where socialism, either as discussed by Marx himself, McCarraher, McCabe, or whoever, rejects ownership of self. Certainly personal property in the form of material wealth, or more specifically, capital, is arranged different within socialistic narratives. Socialistic ideology places the communal before personal. Which is where i see parallels of Christian (or Biblical) social order.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/7/2010 7:05:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/7/2010 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | If you are a Christian concerned with the cause of the poor you become Mother Teresa, not Karl Marx!
Daniel : "Certainly personal property in the form of material wealth, or more specifically, capital, is arranged different within socialistic narratives. Socialistic ideology places the communal before personal. Which is where i see parallels of Christian (or Biblical) social order."
That is the very thing that is the central focus of the ARGUMENTATION between the socialists and the libertarians. And the socialists have not justified their propositions argumentatively. Indeed, they cannot (except in the case of contractual socialism) because the results of their political system transgresses the principles of argumentation...and then proceeds to transgress against private property...and further, it proceeds to force and murder if someone resists their transgressions against their private property.
Socialism, unless arrived at contractually, is untenable both ethically and economically. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm not sure it's possible to be a Christian without concern for the poor 
Asher: That is the very thing that is the central focus of the ARGUMENTATION between the socialists and the libertarians
Daniel: Yup.
Asher: And the socialists have not justified their propositions argumentatively.
Daniel: Which propositions? That the community precedes the individual? The existence of an individual assumes the existence of a community. Much like the principles of argumentation, you cannot think about a lack of community without assumptions that prove communal existence, whether linguistically (one cannot think without thinking in terms of language, if you can, i'd really really like to know how), culturally, although cultural is already ingrained in language. Socialism, as espoused by Marx, does not deny agency. Indeed it is the community that allows for agency to exist through developing a child into an adult. Without proper communal institutions, whether family, orphanages, whatever (circumstances are rarely perfect) there can be no development of a child, who is certainly not a morally responsible agent, into an adult who is a morally responsible agent who is capable of engaging in argumentation concerning moral/ethical concerns. I fail to see why there would even be a need for private property within a society that arranges itself upon principles of communal survival. People are treated like property in capitalism, and by capitalism i simply mean the existing business, corporate world that exists in reality right now. The world that caused the economic collapse, and the world that is exploiting the collapse to treat it's workers even worse, while making the wealthy even wealthier.
You're criticism of socialism may very well be sound. But you're claims are far to vague to be of any use. You're suggesting that in all of Marx's writings, he never legitimately argued for this thesis? that in all of marxist literature, EVER, no one, EVER argued their propositions?Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/7/2010 7:38:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2010 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Until Christ comes and sets things up His way, capitalism is the only system that respects a non-self-contradictory layout of economic progression; the way things "ought" to and logically should be. Every other system encroaches upon the human spirit and goes against what ought to be, and does so in logical contradiction, as Asher pointed out.
Now, I know the quote below from Wikipedia about Socialism isn't the all-encompassing spoken word on the subject, but look this.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (broken into individual italicized sentences):
1. Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour [sic] one contributes to society.
Right off the bat, if one is to be consistent with the implementation of this philosophy, the handicapped are already at a disadvantage. No allowance can be made for them without abdicating and thus defeating the purpose of the philosophy.
2. They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.
Note how it skews the matter by running right over the real issue; for socialism falls prey to the same attacks and for the same reasons: the human heart gone bad. However, if capitalism is working correctly, no one, no matter how wealthy they are, would abuse their wealth. Further, everyone would have equal time to gain wealth with no ceiling limit. "Exploitation," therefore, is not an argument against capitalism; it is an argument against the exploiter, regardless of the system in which exploitation is found.
3. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise [sic] their potential, and does not utilise [sic] technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.
The first half of the third sentence falls on its face in view of the faulty logic of the second sentence, and the second half runs, again, right past the issue; for capitalism is not what it is because of utility, but that does not mean either that it disrespects the advantage of utility, so long as utility is governed by and not against capitalism.
Well, I'm done!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2010 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | DANIEL: I fail to see why there would even be a need for private property within a society that arranges itself upon principles of communal survival.
STARKMAN: Because communal service is not all that there is to being human! What you're stating is utility, which is fine when it's kept within the confines of the larger picture: that we start by recognizing that humans first need their own space (an intangible at that!) and that they don't want to share their underwear. (I mean, why stop, Daniel, with just individual ownership of private property. The issue of utility is much bigger than that if we are to stay consistent with your statement.)
DANIEL: People are treated like property in capitalism, and by capitalism i simply mean the existing business, corporate world that exists in reality right now.
STARKMAN: Again, this is the same faulty logic espoused in that Wikipedia article I posted above. Plain and simple, no one is treated like property because of capitalism. People are treated like property in every known economic system to man, not just capitalism.
DANIEL: The world that caused the economic collapse, and the world that is exploiting the collapse to treat it's workers even worse, while making the wealthy even wealthier.
STARKMAN: Hey, it wasn't capitalism that caused this problem. You'll have to look elsewhere, like to the greed in men's hearts. (And, if you follow the thinking of people like David Rockefeller, to...well, socialistic and utilitarian thinking and population reduction by means of very drastic measures.) Look at the many economic systems that have come and gone through the ages. They didn't fall (many in almost the same exact manner in which the US is falling) because those systems were capitalism based.
It's just not capitalism that's at fault here; it's people, period.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/7/2010 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel, pardon me for finding it dumbfoundingly horrendous when an armed robber takes my property...and then turns and says "It's for a good cause."
See...your and all socialists...concern for the poor...as an ethical concern...is a mask for the envy and murder in your hearts. You cannot accomplish the ethical unethically...which is what you try to do. You cannot gain your points argumentatively...so you resort to force. You, Daniel, the professed pacifist...rely ultimately on force to accomplish your political objectives. Because your pacifism, like your concern for the poor, is an ethical mask and rhetorical weapon meant to obscure your villainy from your victims. You say, "It's for a good cause." as you rob me...and if I resist your robbery...you are prepared to use lethal force to accomplish what you cannot accomplish by argumentation.
Daniel: That the community precedes the individual? The existence of an individual assumes the existence of a community.
There was no community when God created Adam. It's the I-Thou individual that proceeds community. I won't go into the full presentation of this as we've already covered this ground in another thread.
Just because humans are now primarily birthed into existing communities does not mean that the community is absolutely needed to form a human "into an adult who is a morally responsible agent who is capable of engaging in argumentation concerning moral/ethical concerns."
Pregnant woman shipwrecked. Only survivor on island. She gives birth to her child. Trains him in morality. He grows to adulthood. They are rescued. The man enters "society" and is appalled at the immorality manifested by people who grew up in communities.
The I-Thou God-man relationship is constitutive of what a man is at his core. Even though a man may not recognize and acknowledge this fact until later in his life...and so therefore, has experienced I-Thou between himself and another human being before he has consciously experienced the I-Thouness, that is prior to all, with God.
Individualism, at least some diminished form of it, is concurrent with the principles of argumentation that you say you agree with. A full blown individualist philosophy requires argumentation. Your collectivist view totally requires argumentation. A basic individualism must be acknowledged to proceed with argument...and so therefore impossible that...with a basic individualism acknowledged by all...that you will then be able to establish a philosophy that overturns what you have already agreed to.
Daniel: "I fail to see why there would even be a need for private property within a society that arranges itself upon principles of communal survival."
First, there is need for, whether recognized and acknowledged or not, of "property in oneself" And for the space one fills. To even
make the statement you just made.
Daniel: "People are treated like property in capitalism, and by capitalism i simply mean the existing business, corporate world that exists in reality right now."
As Starkman has said, people are treated like property in all economic systems. (See again my arguments in the other thread about this topic)
And to call the "existing business, corporate world that exists in reality right now" capitalism...is fallacious. One, what exists right now is a version of socialism...two, to call this particular version of socialism "capitalism" is to make it argumentatively impossible for me to defend what I mean by capitalism. It's to define my concepts out of existence so as to win the argument by default. It is a bad faith tactic often resorted to by socialists. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 9:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
"See...your and all socialists...concern for the poor...as an ethical concern...is a mask for the envy and murder in your hearts."
Well.. I guess we're done then. Peace brother. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 10:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Tom: If this change is made, how's the conversation different?.
Daniel: It changes a lot of things. I'm approaching it as a systemic issue, not a personal issue. Certainly there are capitalists who are great people (although you have to find it somewhat unsettling when you have billionaire philanthropists who give money away while the people who manufacture their products are committing suicide), and there are socialists who just want to blow stuff up (I'd wager a number of the G20 protesters are in this category). But it's never about the individuals per se. Certainly human agents are the ones who perpetuate systems, but there are so many social factors at work it's hard to discuss abstractions like economics in personal terms. At least for me.
For example, the video you linked to discusses the power that finance has over industry or manufacturing. In other words, the people who do no work have the money and make money from people who do the work. However, it does not follow that everyone who is in the finance sector is a horrible scum bag. It's systemic. A social structure that gives the decision making into the individuals who make money off of money rather then making money off of some sort of productive labor (which can include arts, sciences, actual labor, manufacturing, etc etc) creates a huge wealth gap between the financiers and the work force. This isn't one persons fault, it's a (dys?)function of the mechanism known, generally, as capitalism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/7/2010 10:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Woah. Sure you wanna say THAT Asher? That sounds way too tough. Sure you're in a position to know this is the case about the hearts of ALL socialists' concern for the poor?
Look precisely at what I said, "See...your and all socialists...concern for the poor...as an ethical concern...is a mask for the envy and murder in your hearts."
I draw a distinction between socialists "ethical concern" for the poor...and the concern of their hearts moved by compassion. The ethical cannot be accomplished unethically. Socialistic "concern" for the poor is a ruse to hide their political agenda of dominance of other human beings. That's why I say if you are concerned for the poor...you become Mother Teresa, not Karl Marx. It is possible to have genuine compassion in your heart at the same time you have desire to dominate...you just direct the compassion toward whoever your chosen group is...and direct your desire to dominate at whoever opposes your plans.
When I meet a socialist who delimits himself to appeals for contractual socialism, then I will shake his hand. All other socialists have the willingness to resort to force...and so...have murder in their hearts...so, yes, I'm sure I want to say THAT. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/7/2010 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | "It is possible to have genuine compassion in your heart at the same time you have desire to dominate...you just direct the compassion toward whoever your chosen group is...and direct your desire to dominate at whoever opposes your plans. "
Sigh. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/7/2010 11:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel : "Sigh."
Is that what passes for argumentation?
Look, I do not think you sit around wringing your hands like an evil madman, and cackling hysterical laughter at the thought of murdering someone. I'm just pushing you to the logical and natural conclusion of your own premises...to hopefully give you pause to reconsider. If you support socialism...for whatever reason (the poor, fairness, etc)...then the logical and natural place that socialism goes to is thievery, coercion, fraud, force, and murder.
Individually, anyone can take a cause upon themselves, like Mother Teresa, and work for that cause...by use of their own time and resources...and by public advocacy. All those acts are commendable. They are for a good end...and follow a good methodology to advance that end.
And the dark side of people's concern for the ethical can be a willingness to act unethically to advance their ethical end. Socialism, in all but the excluded contractual socialism, ultimately rests on force to accomplish it's ends. Socialists will force me to do something they think I should do. Even when I agree with their stated end goal...their methodology is the problem. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/8/2010 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | "Is that what passes for argumentation?"
Nope. It is more an expression of "wow, he's totally missed the point".
I'm still baffled at your merger of libertarian-esque economics, the genesis story (which I'm guessing you take literally? and apparently miss the point of that as well), and Buber's philosophy, who was something of a socialist himself.
I've never argued for any method of implementation on either small communities, or nation-states. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 7/10/2010 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/10/2010 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: Woah. Sure you wanna say THAT Asher? That sounds way too tough. Sure you're in a position to know this is the case about the hearts of ALL socialists' concern for the poor?
Jeff: I think Asher responded well to this. But it also reminds me of what Walter Williams once said while filling in for Rush Limbaugh. It was about the then new federal law that compelled businesses to pay for accomodations for the handicapped. Walter said the reason why he opposed it was because someone might take their own sense of property rights seriously enough to be insubordinate to the federal government up to the point of using self-defense against armed officials, thereby resulting in the death of the property owner.
So we then have to ask ourself just what Asher asks: Is the duty of the State to compel people to be merciful/charitable so obvious that it warrants the killing of people over it (for the law will necessarily entail that very possibility for certain cases)? I think scripturally, the answer is obvious. Neither the OT nor the NT gives even a hint that the State was ever authorized by God to COMPEL the good (on the contrary, God, per scripture, didn't even authorize government at all until after the Flood, thereby showing how much God prefers, when PRACTICAL, non-compelled, voluntary behavior). Rather, it was authorized to DETER the evil via JUST punishment and PRAISE the good.
But is NOT paying for handicap accomodations on one's property EVIL? If so, then virtually every human being is evil and ought to be PUNISHED for it by the State by the more popular view of the State's role. The argument proves too much and, thus, can't be true, IMO.
They did a spot on charitable giving on 20/20 a few years ago. The results were completely predictable, per the scriptural view of things. Europe, the socialists, were the least charitable. In America, the South was the most charitable (almost certainly because in large part, the Bible belt culture is conducive to charitable giving). And yet, the South is probably the most anti-socialist of Americans. It all makes perfect sense given what we know about human nature, IMO.
Why would the socialists in Europe be the least charitable? Because they come to ASSUME wealth redistribution is the duty of the STATE. And yet, those states are in worse economic condition than we are. How many people are trying to get to American from Europe? How many Americans are trying to get to Europe (except maybe Switzerland, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world with everyone owning an assault rifle for civilian militia responsibilities). The collectivists' view of human nature is contradicted by virtually all empirical evidence, IMO. God meant men to be free. Collectivist States assume men can't be trusted to be free except for the most trivial of decisions.
Collectivist States are all about abandoning justice as applied to PUNISHMENT. This is what allows society to become more and more pampered with respect to accountability, while having greater and greater senses of entitlement which can never be ULTIMATELY satiated by the State, thereby resulting in eventual catastrophic collapse. I think we would be in awe if we Americans knew how much money we have spent in bailing out and propping up corrupt governments around the world via loans that were never repaid and foreign aid. And all we've done, thereby, is created ever growing senses of entitlement in humans, worldwide. How many humans can actually sympathize with Paul's claim that "we were born naked .... therefore we should be content...?"
Justice, to the extent practical, is the duty of government. Charity/compassion is the duty of individuals. I won't say that exceptions won't need to be made for perverse societies. As Brandon so often points out, there are exceptions to virtually all rules. But it takes really WISE people to know what the exceptions are, not WHINEY babies whose sense of entitlement is out of touch with the necessary and sufficient conditions of a civilized order of DIVERSE people with DIVERSE interests. And the government tends to be IN THE BUSINESS of PERVERTING societies by dividing people to advance their own agendas.
It's a tough call to know what is the greater of evils when voting in elections when a society has become as blind to basic ethical obligations as ours has. But it is not a tough call to know that government is a LARGE part of the problem. To suppose that more government intervention is the obvious solution to societal ills, when government is so clearly the source of such much of that ill, seems naive. Yet this seems to be the socialist approach--always give the same government that has defrauded us over and over again even more power!
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/10/2010 3:01:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/10/2010 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
"Yet this seems to be the socialist approach--always give the same government that has defrauded us over and over again even more power!"
To use my response to Asher : Sigh.
To use an analogy. It's like a baseball player trying to explain the game of baseball to an Ice Hockey player. When the Baseball player explains that each team scores by running around the bases, the hockey player says "Well that's dumb, you're going to fall down on the ice if you try to run!" | | 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 6:45 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 |
|
|