There’s a crapton of room between “Marxism” and social safety nets…
[/quote]
It would be nice if he had defined what he meant by “legitimate redistribution.” Some people get understandably concerned about calls for redistribution of wealth by the state. The undefined qualifier “legitimate” just doesn’t cut it.
I’m not going to pretend that laissez faire capitalism is perfect or that trickle down economics alone can prevent poverty. But I honestly believe that it is the lesser of evils. I believe that capitalist economies are more stable and provide more wealth and opportunities for people than any other system. I also don’t believe that a classless society is possible. People naturally form into hierarchical orders. You cannot abolish the lower class. Attempts to artificially raise the lower class can only end in mob rule then dictatorship.
I don’t support military adventurism at all. I was against intervention in Libya from the start. Syria is a different question because the outcome of the conflict will have a profound impact on the Middle East. Syria is Hezbollah’s supply line, its strategic depth and Iran’s closest regional ally with contiguous porous borders. A Sunni regime in Syria would be of enormous strategic benefit to the west. Having said that I don’t advocate military intervention. I advocate arming the rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. My beliefs on foreign policy are well considered and not in the realm of rash adventurism.
I’m aware of that.
I’m defending free markets as the lesser of evils.
[/quote]
What free markets? The one whose legal definitions and laws have increasingly favored BIG corporations and businesses? Economic centralization? If it weren’t for household debt/credit to paper over the growing gap, Wall Street would have been burned down years ago.
The one that has chipped away at the widely distributed property-owning, small local business/industry vision of the “free market?” That one? The one that is defended when the great big box stores (owned/run by some distant person) squeeze out mom and pop?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Funny, i thought Jesus was pretty non-violent. Charity through guns and the treat of violence…[/quote]
His father is an entirely different story though
What free markets? The one whose legal definitions and laws have increasingly favored BIG corporations and businesses?
[/quote]
I think repealing the uptick rule and Glass-Steagall was a really bad idea. I don’t favour completely unregulated markets. I also don’t favour bailing out large corporations or subsidising industries unless it is clearly in the interests of the state.
You have to ask yourself why mom and pop can be squeezed out. It’s because consumers have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Large corporations can unfairly destroy small businesses yes. But what is the solution? Punish successful businesses to prop up less successful ones?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Funny, i thought Jesus was pretty non-violent. Charity through guns and the treat of violence…[/quote]
Christianity isn’t anarcho-libertarianism.
Romans 13. Give it a quick read. [/quote]
Yup there it is in red letters. “Spend your money they way I say to or I’ll kill you.” I had missed that verse. Submit to authority <> use armed men and violence to do charity. Not even a little bit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Funny, i thought Jesus was pretty non-violent. Charity through guns and the treat of violence…[/quote]
Christianity isn’t anarcho-libertarianism.
Romans 13. Give it a quick read. [/quote]
Yup there it is in red letters. “Spend your money they way I say to or I’ll kill you.” I had missed that verse. Submit to authority <> use armed men and violence to do charity. Not even a little bit.[/quote]
“Spend your money on the national military I want, or I’ll kill you. Spend the money on courts and police to protect a fictional (secularly speaking) concept–“private property” and the right to it, because I want.” Unless you’re truly an anarchist, framing it the way you have above is hypocrisy. But, if you are an anarchist, that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Duce, you can feel how you want to feel as a libertarian. IF that’s YOUR premiere defining ideology, so be it.
I’m a Christian first and foremost, and Romans 12 is fairly clear about the general goodness of the existence of the state, and of taxation.
You have to ask yourself why mom and pop can be squeezed out. It’s because consumers have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Large corporations can unfairly destroy small businesses yes. But what is the solution? Punish successful businesses to prop up less successful ones?[/quote]
You better think of something.
The above is basically a concession to actual Marxists. “Yes, Capitalism naturally trends over time to greater and greater capital/property/wealth centralization, with the rest of the public increasingly becoming credit extended-hyper consumerist-employee-economic units. Whatcha goin’ do though, right?”
You have to ask yourself why mom and pop can be squeezed out. It’s because consumers have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Large corporations can unfairly destroy small businesses yes. But what is the solution? Punish successful businesses to prop up less successful ones?[/quote]
You better think of something.
The above is basically a concession to actual Marxists. “Yes, Capitalism naturally trends over time to greater and greater capital/property/wealth centralization, with the rest of the public increasingly becoming credit extended-hyper consumerist-employee-economic units. Whatcha goin’ do though, right?”
[/quote]
At the end of the day the choice is with consumers. If they don’t want to support a big corporation they don’t have to. It’s a problem to do with human nature not capitalism.
You have to ask yourself why mom and pop can be squeezed out. It’s because consumers have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Large corporations can unfairly destroy small businesses yes. But what is the solution? Punish successful businesses to prop up less successful ones?[/quote]
You better think of something.
The above is basically a concession to actual Marxists. “Yes, Capitalism naturally trends over time to greater and greater capital/property/wealth centralization, with the rest of the public increasingly becoming credit extended-hyper consumerist-employee-economic units. Whatcha goin’ do though, right?”
[/quote]
At the end of the day the choice is with consumers. If they don’t want to support a big corporation they don’t have to. It’s a problem to do with human nature not capitalism.
[/quote]
Isn’t that what they say about Marxism/socialism? Sounds great on paper, everyone does their bit, and then shares the fruits equally…But then, you actually have to add the actual people.
What is Capitalism without the human actors, either? Your objections sound more like resignation…“Capitalism” defeats itself, eventually. It’ll persist until the gap can’t be ignored, can’t be debt/credited over, and all hell breaks loose in a violent upheaval and revolt.
I mean wouldn’t it be great it multibillionaires would reign up and say, “You know, we don’t want to disturb the decentralized, small, local, traditional business environment in these communities. I’m already making a crap ton of loot.”
You know “maybe we shouldn’t further exploit human weakness and psychology, in order to get Joe “debt living” Schmoe to buy our shiny trivial baubles. I’m rich enough, maybe I should encourage him to sit on it, save it, and purchase only what is absolutely necessary for the betterment of himself (and his potential family). Maybe I can forgo another home on another beach to pay my employees more.”
“You know, maybe I (we) shouldn’t use a State shaped fictional status that puts mom and pop at a disadvantage.”
“You know, maybe I have enough cars, boats, electronics, and houses. Maybe I will keep hiring fellow citizens instead of sending it all overseas where I can drag a dollar through shanty slums in order to assemble a desperate work-force. But if I do lay off my fellow citizens, maybe I won’t bitch so much (having exported their jobs) that they’re (and their families) are now stuck relying on the state.”
But, there’s human nature.
You have to ask yourself why mom and pop can be squeezed out. It’s because consumers have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Large corporations can unfairly destroy small businesses yes. But what is the solution? Punish successful businesses to prop up less successful ones?[/quote]
You better think of something.
The above is basically a concession to actual Marxists. “Yes, Capitalism naturally trends over time to greater and greater capital/property/wealth centralization, with the rest of the public increasingly becoming credit extended-hyper consumerist-employee-economic units. Whatcha goin’ do though, right?”
[/quote]
At the end of the day the choice is with consumers. If they don’t want to support a big corporation they don’t have to. It’s a problem to do with human nature not capitalism.
[/quote]
Isn’t that what they say about Marxism/socialism? Sounds great on paper, everyone does their bit, and then shares the fruits equally…But then, you actually have to add the actual people.
What is Capitalism without the human actors, either? Your objections sound more like resignation…“Capitalism” defeats itself, eventually. It’ll persist until the gap can’t be ignored, can’t be debt/credited over, and all hell breaks loose in a violent upheaval and revolt.
[/quote]
Truth be told I have a very pessimistic view of human nature and political systems. No political system can last forever. They will all decline into despotism eventually. The idea is to forestall that decline. Not through wealth redistribution - that will only hasten it. But through social conservatism - family values, honour, loyalty, courage, obedience to duty, self sacrifice, charity, morality etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean wouldn’t it be great it multibillionaires would reign up and say, “You know, we don’t want to disturb the decentralized, small, local, traditional business environment in these communities. I’m already making a crap ton of loot.”
You know “maybe we shouldn’t further exploit human weakness and psychology, in order to get Joe “debt living” Schmoe to buy our shiny trivial baubles. I’m rich enough, maybe I should encourage him to sit on it, save it, and purchase only what is absolutely necessary for the betterment of himself (and his potential family). Maybe I can forgo another home on another beach to pay my employees more.”
“You know, maybe I (we) shouldn’t use a State shaped fictional status that puts mom and pop at a disadvantage.”
“You know, maybe I have enough cars, boats, electronics, and houses. Maybe I will keep hiring fellow citizens instead of sending it all overseas where I can drag a dollar through shanty slums in order to assemble a desperate work-force. But if I do lay off my fellow citizens, maybe I won’t bitch so much (having exported their jobs) that they’re (and their families) are now stuck relying on the state.”
But, there’s human nature.[/quote]
If Joe Shmoe buys shiny baubles he doesn’t need that’s his own fault. As for the rest of your argument I’d be interested in how you think those problems can be solved.
Truth be told I have a very pessimistic view of human nature and political systems. [/quote]
Not sure if I’m as pessimistic, but I certainly understand.
[quote] But through social conservatism - family values, honour, loyalty, courage, obedience to duty, self sacrifice, charity, morality etc.
[/quote]
Turn on the TV. Watch the commercials. Watch the previews and the TV shows. Commerical capitalism at its finest. Casual sex, genitalia jokes, anti-thrift “buy my trivial baubles” commercialism. Does that really feel like the inherent ally for the value system you laid out above?
I’m not sure how much of an ally “capitalists” are these days in conserving widely distributed private ownership, local markets, family (and the virtues that hold up the institution–thrift, prudence, community, etc.)
Frankly, I suspect mega multinational/global corporate financial capitalism will get the baby (free markets) tossed out along with the bathwater.
If Joe Shmoe buys shiny baubles he doesn’t need that’s his own fault. As for the rest of your argument I’d be interested in how you think those problems can be solved.
[/quote]
If this is the retort of Charlie Capitalist, having exploited the human weaknesses of Joe “debt consumer” Schmoe, and having no further obligation, then Charlie Capitalist needn’t be surprised when Joe turns to the nanny state to alleviate his weaknesses. It’s only human nature.
Turn on the TV. Watch the commercials. Watch the previews and the TV shows. Commerical capitalism at its finest. Casual sex, genitalia jokes, anti-thrift “buy my trivial baubles” commercialism. Does that really feel like the inherent ally for the value system you laid out above?
[/quote]
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s. The foundation of society is the family unit first and foremost. Devalue/undermine the family unit and the whole society falls apart. Without the family unit as the foundation we’re finished as a civilisation.
Capitalism is not an ally. It’s merely the system under which we must operate in order to preserve individual liberty.
I get what you’re saying. I’m saying that personal responsibility will stop Joe buying baubles. And the values that flow on from family values are civic values which in turn create a better society.
How about saying no to state/public ownership of everything.
But also saying no to the centralization of economic power.
How about trying to figure out how and why more people don’t own their own property, and their own production. Why is capitalism becoming so lopsidedely about the increasingly more looking after other peoples mega-sized property/production, instead of looking after their own (paraphrasing Chesterton loosely…)?
Edit: And yes, honestly, it may take state private AND state action.
