[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about saying no to state/public ownership of everything.
But also saying no to the centralization of economic power.
[/quote]
Saying no to economic centralisation is fine. Where you need to be careful is deciding on what action to take to reverse it. Direct action by the state would be popular with “the people” no doubt. That popular support would inevitably be cynically abused by a demagogue - a Gracchi, a Mugabe or an Obama.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
I agree that free market capitalism tends towards increasing centralisation. But the world has yet to see industrialists as despots. By contrast redistributionist despots are as old as civilisation itself.
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”[/quote]
That revolution was largely founded upon Marxism with hardcore Marxists spearheading it.
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”[/quote]
That revolution was largely founded upon Marxism with hardcore Marxists spearheading it.[/quote]
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”[/quote]
That revolution was largely founded upon Marxism with hardcore Marxists spearheading it.[/quote]
Yet, where was the state imposition?
[/quote]
There was none. But that doesn’t mean that capitalism was responsible.
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”[/quote]
That revolution was largely founded upon Marxism with hardcore Marxists spearheading it.[/quote]
Yet, where was the state imposition?
[/quote]
There was none. But that doesn’t mean that capitalism was responsible.
[/quote]
And who is selling and profiting from these revolutionary moral values? Private individuals trying to make yet another buck.
That’s not a result of capitalism. It’s largely a result of the social revolution of the 1960’s…[/quote]
The market of ideas. This revolution wasn’t imposed by the state, but happened in the “free market.” Profited upon, commercialized, bit by bit by the “capitalist.”[/quote]
That revolution was largely founded upon Marxism with hardcore Marxists spearheading it.[/quote]
Yet, where was the state imposition?
[/quote]
There was none. But that doesn’t mean that capitalism was responsible.
[/quote]
And who is selling and profiting from these revolutionary moral values? Private individuals trying to make yet another buck.[/quote]
Human nature. However industry is inevitably and fundamentally opposed to economic and political Marxism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
That isn’t entirely true. If someone is so impoverished that all they can afford is XYZ from your store, then what choice would they have?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
That isn’t entirely true. If someone is so impoverished that all they can afford is XYZ from your store, then what choice would they have?[/quote]
Poverty = someone starving to death in the dust bowel in the 1930’s. It does not equal a morbidly obese welfare recipient.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
That isn’t entirely true. If someone is so impoverished that all they can afford is XYZ from your store, then what choice would they have?[/quote]
Poverty = someone starving to death in the dust bowel in the 1930’s. It does not equal a morbidly obese welfare recipient.[/quote]
Where did I mention morbidly obese welfare recipient?
Oh, yeah right th…wait, I didn’t.
[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.
[/quote]
No, it does not say all authority is good. It says they are all worked to your good. All things through God are made to serve good in the end. Including evil things. Romans 13 no more says that the state is good than Ephesians 6 (or a number of other passages) says the institution of slavery is good.
The Bible makes it clear that it is right to disobey authority when it is contrary to the will of God. It’s why Daniel kept praying. It IS many times our duty to endure evil with the understanding that there is a deeper pattern that will be made perfect.
Though I agree it is sometimes tough to remember that even Obama is in power because God permits it. But again that doesn’t mean what he compels us to do is good in itself nor that we should always comply.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Jesus was a Marxist , before Marx the OM[/quote]
Do share.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, an ideal Christian society would be a monarchy with God as king as was the original attempt with Israel. But really Jesus was entirely A-political. They tried trapping him with political questions a number of times and he basically brushed aside all the politics as unimportant. And even all that aside, Jesus would be non-violent and believed in aid through private charity which is VERY non-marxist.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
That isn’t entirely true. If someone is so impoverished that all they can afford is XYZ from your store, then what choice would they have?[/quote]
Poverty = someone starving to death in the dust bowel in the 1930’s. It does not equal a morbidly obese welfare recipient.[/quote]
Where did I mention morbidly obese welfare recipient?
Oh, yeah right th…wait, I didn’t.[/quote]
My point was that real poverty doesn’t exist in the first world.
The State can chew you up and spit you out when it sets its sights on you. So can Exxon, Microsoft, and Apple. Fearing “Big” isn’t necessarily irrational, especially when Big Business and Big Government are connected at the hip.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Jesus was a Marxist , before Marx the OM[/quote]
Do share.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, an ideal Christian society would be a monarchy with God as king as was the original attempt with Israel. But really Jesus was entirely A-political. They tried trapping him with political questions a number of times and he basically brushed aside all the politics as unimportant. And even all that aside, Jesus would be non-violent and believed in aid through private charity which is VERY non-marxist.[/quote]
He probably would be called A-political but I can tell you he fed the hungry and healed the sick , all with $00.00 compensation so he is definitely (NOT) a Capitalist and would be all about taking care of sick, poor , hungry , from other countries , from here , the lazy and any one else
the OM[/quote]