 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Asher/One Love: The Concept of Ownership, Round 3 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 1:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 6:33 PM (GMT -6) | | The Bible: And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Dwayne: Now, this is straight up and down capitalism at work right here...right?
What the Bible points to is contractual socialism:
Acts 5:1-4
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back [part] of the price, his wife also being privy [to it], and brought a certain part, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? No one was being forced into socialism by the early church, it was contractual socialism even if there was no formal contract.
In a libertarian society, just such a thing could function. But in a socialist society, capitalism and libertarianism cannot be allowed.
-----------
Issue 2: There is a deficit of economic thought in the posts of nearly everyone here, save Jeff. It's pretty evident...everyone attacking capitalism seems to have no clear idea what capitalism even is.
Jeff: the capitalism that libertarians defend is not a political system. It's nothing more than a species of doing long-term investment for greater future productivity at the expense of immediate gratification. People do this all the time.
In a nutshell, there it is. But for people who don't already know it's ins and outs it probably needs to be amplified, so here is Mises:
Capital goods are the intermediate factors between the given natural factors of production and consumer goods. Nature—given resources and human labor are the given natural factors. But if they are to produce, they must be guided.The produced, intermediary factors of production—capital goods—are not only tools; they are also all other intermediary goods, half-finished products, and supplies of consumer goods which are used for the support of those who are producing with the aid of capital goods.The production process which we are organizing and operating today started in the early ages of history, in the remotest ages of history. If the children used up the nets and fish produced by their parents, capital accumulation would have had to start all over again.There is a continuous progress from simpler conditions to more refined conditions. It is important to realize this because we must know that, from the early beginnings on, the first step toward this system of producing with the aid of capital goods was saving, and has always been saving.
The concept of “capital” must be distinguished from the concept of “capital goods.” It is impossible to think and to deal with the problems of capital goods without using and referring to the concepts which we have developed in the complicated modern system of capital calculation. Capital goods are something material—something that could be described in terms of physics and chemistry. The concept of “capital” refers to the valuation of a supply of these capital goods in terms of money. This valuation of capital goods in terms of money is what marks the beginning of what may be called a new and higher period in human endeavors to improve the external conditions of mankind. The problem is how to maintain or to preserve the amount of capital available and how to avoid consuming the available capital goods without replacing them. The problem is how not to consume more, or if possible, how to consume less, than the amount of newly produced products. It is the problem of capital preservation, maintenance, and of course of increasing the capital available.
It was one of the fundamental errors of Aristotle that he believed that in exchanges the things which were exchanged must have the same value. Since the days of Aristotle, for two or three thousand years, the same error has prevailed again and again, leading great thinkers, as well as simple men, astray. The same error appears in the first pages of Marx’s Das Kapital, making everything Marx said about these problems useless.This error was repeated even much later in the writings of Henri Bergson [1859-1941], the eminent French philosopher
There is no equivalence in exchange. On the contrary, it is differences that bring about exchange.You cannot reduce the terms of exchange and of trade to equivalence; you can only reduce them to differences in evaluation.The buyer values what he gets more highly than what he gives away; the seller values what he gives less highly than what he gets. Therefore, the equivalence that we use in determining the importance the various capital goods have in our lives can only be expressed in terms of prices. In calculating in terms of prices you can establish a system of prices, and determine whether or not a price has increased or decreased— that is, in terms of money. Without a price system there cannot be any calculation. In the socialist system, which cannot have a price system as we have it in the market system, there cannot be established calculation and computation
In the system of economic calculation, we have the terms “capital” and “income”—terms and notions that cannot be thought of outside this system. “Capital” is the sum of the prices that can be obtained on the market for a definite given supply of capital goods. The businessman employs economic calculation in a specific way; he could not operate without this system of economic calculation. At the beginning of his enterprise he establishes a total value of all the capital goods at his disposal and calls it his “capital,” or the “capital” of his firm or corporation. Periodically, he compares the value of the prices of all the capital goods available in the firm with the prices of these capital goods at the beginning. If there is an increase he calls it “profit.” If there is a decrease, he calls it “loss.” No other system would make it possible to establish whether what has been done has increased the capital available, improved it, or decreased it. From another point of view, the total surplus that he calls “profit” can also be called “income,” insofar as it makes it possible for the owner—corporation or individual—to consume this amount without reducing the amount of capital available and without, therefore, living at the expense of the future. Thus the concepts of “capital” and “income” developed only within this system of economic calculation.
If the total amount of “income” is consumed, then there is no change in the amount of capital available for the enterprise. If a part is saved, i.e., not consumed but reinvested—that is, if it is used to expand the stock of capital goods working in the enterprise—then we can say additional capital has been accumulated; the enterprise has earned some “income.” If the contrary is the case, if the amount consumed by the owner exceeds the income, then we have capital consumption, or capital
decumulation, and there will be less available in the future for the production of consumer goods.
In fact, we may say, and nobody can deny it, that all material progress, everything that distinguishes our conditions from those of earlier ages, is that more has been saved and accumulated as capital goods. This also distinguishes the United States from, let us say, India or China.The most important difference is only a difference in time. It is not too late for them. We just started earlier to save some of the excess of production over consumption.
The most important institutional factor in the development of nations was the establishment of a system of government and of legislation that made large-scale saving possible. Large-scale saving was impossible and still is impossible today in all those countries in which the governments believe that when one man has more it must necessarily be the cause of other
people’s distress.This was once the idea of all people.And it is today the idea of the people in many countries outside the countries of Western civilization. It is the idea that is now jeopardizing Western civilization by introducing different methods of government into the constitutions which made possible the development of Western civilization. It was also the idea prevailing in most European countries until the rise of modern capitalism, that is, until the age very inappropriately called the “Industrial Revolution.”
To show how strong this idea was, I quote from Immanuel Kant [1724–1804], one of the most important philosophers—but he lived in the east, in Kaliningrad, then called Königsberg: “If one man has more than necessary, another man has less.” This is mathematically perfectly true, of course, but mathematics and economics are two different things.The fact is that in all those countries in which people believed in this dictum and in which governments believed that the best way to improve conditions was to confiscate the wealth of successful businessmen—it was not necessary to confiscate the wealth of those who were unsuccessful—in all those countries, it was not possible to save and invest.
If someone asked me why the ancient Greeks did not have railroads, I would answer, “Because there was a tendency in those days to confiscate wealth.Why should people then invest?”The Greek philosopher Isocrates [436–438 BC] made some speeches which are still available to us. He said if a wealthy citizen stood trial in Athens he had no chance to win because the judges wanted to confiscate his wealth, expecting this would improve their situation. Under such conditions there couldn’t be any question of large-scale savings.
-------------------------------------
This is why ONLY capitalism, even if it is an enslaved capitalism, enslaved to an overall socialist political system, like China...can increase the standard of living of any nation. Capitalism is an economic system that has shown itself to be very fruitful...socialism is not an economic system, it is a social and political system that attaches itself to "saved wealth" in the form of capital, and leeches the economic energy out of that accumulated wealth until it is depleted. At that point, socialism, the parasite, does not die...nor does the host (future production of wealth of the nation which is a compilation of the production of all it's citizens)...what happens is that the host now becomes a subsistence host, never able to save and accumulate capital, and the socialist parasite having a decreased food source enters the second stage of socialism...increased control of nearly every aspect of a nation. Never waste a crisis, right Rahm Emanuel? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? No one was being forced into socialism by the early church, it was contractual socialism even if there was no formal contract.
In a libertarian society, just such a thing could function.
So, would you say that the early church was a community of people who freely entered into convenantal (rather than contractual) socialism?
Would you say that, Asher?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 6:14:44 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | This is why I keep mentioning the difference between capitalism and mercantilism.
Capitalism is the only economic option other than subsistence economics.
Socialist theorists are somewhat divided, some talk about the overthrow of capitalism, as if it is something to be gotten rid of entirely (usually Western socialists) (they don't realize that leaves only subsistence economics)...other socialists, usually ones in countries that have already been socialist for awhile (i.e. China again) have experienced firsthand the subsistence level of economics when you disallow capitalism, and so their new strategy is to harness the power of capitalism economically, but to maintain social and political control tightly.
Mercantilists, unlike socialists, want to harness the power of capitalism to maintain the existing political power of the wealthy and elites.
So, there is a sense in which socialists and mercantilists have the same objective...social, political control. In America, the Democrats could more or less be classed as primarily socialist in perspective...the Republicans could more or less be classed as primarily mercantilist in perspective.
Libertarians are for a social, political system, in which each person is able to themselves reap the benefits of capitalism, a system that specially favors no group, everyone, from any group can access the benefits simply by acting in accord with the structures of capitalism. Which aren't all that hard to learn.
Socialist, Mercantilist, Libertarian - these are the social, political options
Capitalism, subsistence economics - these are the economic options
there are ranges within each class, but those are the "families"
Wealth (i.e. more goods, etc) is what is needed and wanted. Any economic system must answer the question: How do you produce wealth? Capitalism has a theory for the production of wealth. A theory that has been tested and shown to produce wealth.
Socialism is not an economic system, it is a political system. To see that clearly, I challenge anyone to lay out the socialist theory of wealth production, and to also give any examples of this happening. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: So, would you say that the early church was a community of people who freely entered into convenantal (rather than contractual) socialism?
Leaving out your parenthesized part, yes, I would say that.
You do realize that a covenant and a contract are basically the same thing right? No need to say "rather than contractual"
Also, it is important to point out that there was nothing binding on anyone, except their common beliefs and goals, Ananias, as Peter said, could have kept any part of his property and still been in good standing with the church...his blameworthiness was in trying to take credit for giving more than he actually gave. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: So, would you say that the early church was a community of people who freely entered into convenantal (rather than contractual) socialism?
Leaving out your parenthesized part, yes, I would say that.
Great. You also said that "covenantal socialism" could occur in a libertarian society. What's more is that such a "socialism", given your point about A and S having private ownership of wealth within the Body, would seem not to exclude at least that central aspect of capitalism.
So...would this infer that you would think that, as Christians, we are to seek to move towards such a "covenantal socialism", at least within the the fellowship of believers?
Just wonderin'
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 6:28:15 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: Doesn't capitalism inextricably deal with private ownership? More specifically, private ownership of natural resources and "capital"? Such that, within a capitalist framework, an individual capitalist's long-term strategy for the "future productivity" of their own wealth accumulation and maximization and future productivity can systemically take precedence over the immediate needs of others?
Doesn't capitalism inextricably deal with private ownership? Inasmuch as you can only make future plans with regard to something you actually have say-so over, yes capitalism deals with private ownership. But that doesn't mean that any given individual capitalist is unconcerned with the immediate needs of others. In fact, the needs and wants of others is the only thing that makes capitalism possible. If no one wants or needs anything then a capitalist can produce as many goods as he wants, but there is no one to buy them.
But that's not your point, right? So, let me directly answer your point by challenging you:
Why don't you Dwayne, take your stewarded resources, pool them with as many like minded people as you can find...you guys start a capitalist enterprise...and instead of making profits, give all that money to the immediate needs of others.
No one is stopping you from doing that. In fact, every socialist minded person in America could do that right now. Why aren't they? Because the needs of others is not the primary objective of socialist thought. Political control is. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: So...would this infer that you would think that, as Christians, we are to seek to move towards such a "covenantal socialism", at least within the the fellowship of believers?
How can two walk together except they be agreed?
If there is agreement, then such an endeavor could happen. Look at the conflict that arose over the supporting of widows in the early church. There was basic agreement over beliefs, etc...but there probably wasn't deep agreement over a wide range of issues...those are the areas that would need to be addressed to make it work.
Also, on small scales and in incomplete ways we do see this happen. I have known some churches that were really tight knit, and they DID take care of each other. Maybe not with a formal structure of socialism, but definitely with an informal structure.
Socialism as a political system is the enemy I am against...along with mercantilism. Socialism as a freely entered social system is NOT my enemy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: No one is stopping the AMERICAN CHURCH from doing this. So why aren't we?
That's a good question.
As an open theist in a pretty much traditional Christian area (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc) I have not found a single church that will have me, unless I basically agree not to talk about open theism at all. So, I am churchless.
But on the other hand...as a mail man in a small town of about 3,000. I have known first hand those who were in need, and been able to put some of my own resources toward those needs. And there was even one instance when I was able to get a small group from a friend's church to collect for a particular dire need. So, it can be done, but it isn't being done all that often is it? Your point is well made. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
If there is agreement, then such an endeavor could happen. Look at the conflict that arose over the supporting of widows in the early church. There was basic agreement over beliefs, etc...but there probably wasn't deep agreement over a wide range of issues...those are the areas that would need to be addressed to make it work.
Also, on small scales and in incomplete ways we do see this happen. I have known some churches that were really tight knit, and they DID take care of each other. Maybe not with a formal structure of socialism, but definitely with an informal structure.
My question to you, Asher...is this:
Christianly speaking, is this motif of "covenantal socialism" (however informal) that you've described above what Christian communities should be STRIVING FOR in their economic thinking? Is moving towards such a structure moving towards the bullseye of Kingdom relationship...or away from it?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
So, it can be done, but it isn't being done all that often is it? Your point is well made.
Dude, I wish it wasn't so easy to make that particular point. Sheesh. 
Lord, bless your Church.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/20/2010 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
As Paul said about giving, it's not for one to have ease and another to have pressure, but for there to be a movement towards equality. IOW, there were brethren so filled with joy that that they were giving EVEN THOUGH they were poor themselves. Paul says, as impressive as that is, that's not the point of giving. So all this business of relatively poor people padding the pockets of already wealthy ministers makes no sense.
When Christ said the apostles were "worthy of the hire," that was meant in the sense that Paul later described it: "Muzzle not the ox that treadeth out corn." IOW, the point was not to get rich from ministry, but to be able to invest your energies into that ministry without the huge distraction of having to make a living independent of that ministry.
For an apostle, having to make an independent living would have been a profound distraction from the ministry. Granted, Paul apparently pulled it off, but he labored ubiquitously and had a unique profession that allowed a lot of flexibility with respect to mobility, etc.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/20/2010 7:15:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/20/2010 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to leave just when we were at a point where we are in agreement, but...
I have a date with my wife.
I'll check in tomorrow. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 12:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | Gotta talk about this one thing that gave me an idea like this a long time ago. There was this very well written graphic novel of Batman: War on Crime.
Long story short, y'all know that Batman is Bruce Wayne, rich, multi-billion dollar corporation owner. Well, in one of his nightly crusades, he comes across a little boy robbing a store at gunpoint. He knows the little boy because his brother had just been killed by violence because of their poverty. Batman was at that scene and saw it go down...so he knew the circumstances under which the boy and his dead brother had been under. So, instead of doing what he usually does in his "war" against crime, he began to see the deeper issues BEHIND all the crime and the violence, particular the socio-economic factors. Instead of just subdoing the boy, Batman gives the kid an opportunity to change the cycle. The little boy accepts and hugs Batman.
 Now what happens next is the interesting part here. See, up to that point, Bruce Wayne had been involved in some corporation dealings involving whether or not to build a major factory in a certain area of Gotham for the sake of maximizing profits. His unscrupulous business dealer was attempting to get him to scuttle the project. But what Bruce Wayne decided to do was to build the factory, SPECIFICALLY KNOWING that profits to shareholders (and himself) would be minimal. He said something to this effect: "We won't make much money in this, but the dividends to the community will be immense." Basically, as a private owner of a company, he purposely went AGAINST the maximization of the interest of shareholder...TOWARDS benefitting the direct community impacted by the company itself. In fact, that was it's MAIN PURPOSE for being built. WHAT friggin multi-billionaire corporation owners in this day and age do YOU know that actually does THAT??? None.
But what could the Church do, if she really put her mind to it? How many self-proclaimed Christians are in America again? Over 70%, right? Tell me that ain't a lot of power, on ALL terms.
------------------------------------------------ Asher remix... Why don't American Christians use their individual and collective stewarded resources, pool them with as many other "covenantal socialists" as they can find, start multiple capitalist enterprises, and instead of making profits, give all (or even HALF) that money to the immediate needs of others.
No one is stopping American Christians from doing that. In fact, every "covenantal socialist", socially activist minded person in America could do that right now. Why aren't they? Because the needs of others is not the primary objective of much contemporary American Christian social activism. Political control is. (Hint: The Religious Left and Right)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 11:47:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/21/2010 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: No one is stopping American Christians from doing that. In fact, every "covenantal socialist", socially activist minded person in America could do that right now. Why aren't they? Because the needs of others is not the primary objective of much contemporary American Christian social activism. Political control is. (Hint: The Religious Left and Right)
Daniel: Some of us are doing it. Look up The Simple Way and its founder Shane Claiborne. Just because you don't see it, or hear about it doesn't mean we don't exist. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | One Love remixing Asher: No one is stopping American Christians from doing that. In fact, every "covenantal socialist", socially activist minded person in America could do that right now. Why aren't they? Because the needs of others is not the primary objective of much contemporary American Christian social activism. Political control is. (Hint: The Religious Left and Right)
Daniel: Some of us are doing it. Look up The Simple Way and its founder Shane Claiborne. Just because you don't see it, or hear about it doesn't mean we don't exist.
Cool stuff. From what I'm noting, Shane (and the Simple Way) are so notable because they are so relatively few compared to the Church at large...right?
Here's a list of some of the Simple Way communities, I think...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/21/2010 7:05:05 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | Woodland works with this one. I know Natalie Potts. She was in the Woodland Hills Youth program when I was there...and served the Youth ministry after I left and she graduated. Great soldier for the Lord!
Notice the "Mennonite" reference there, Tom. Greg is going Mennonite like gangbusters, buddy...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/21/2010 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | | T: I read a quote yesterday (form a well-known essayist/author) but can't remember the name. He said he had spent many years thinking seriously about Jesus and Christianity. In the end he said "When I finally understood what it meant to be a Christian, I wasn't sure I wanted to be one." Dang, who was that?
J: This, to me, is why consequentialism is so fundamental. Because Paul would agree with the guy if there are no post-mortem consequences for our volitional actions:
"If we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men the most miserable." -- Paul
| | Back to Top | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:59 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 |
|
|