Is the US Government Founded on Christian or Non-Christian Premises?

Charlotte wrote

There isn't a Christian in the world who can make the case that Christ would support jungle capitalism.

What on earth is “jungle capitalism”??!!??

Charlotte wrote

Well, the corporations need a working poor to pay slave wages so they can secure their profits.

Hmm…so working VOLUNTARILY to earn your own living is slavery? Then what is NOT slavery?—getting your sustenance for free?—at WHOSE expense?—or does proper human sustenance grow on trees?

And why is making a profit an intrinsically demonic thing? Should people work without reward--on what grounds? By now you should ask yourself why socialism has never worked, and will never ever work—it’s EVIL.

You know, law of the jungle? Survival of the fittest?

You know, VOR, there's a certain old argument. It goes something like this;

When I keep a slave, I make sure they get food and water and a place to sleep. They have everything they need. The capitalist gives their workers a little money, and doesn't care what happens so long as they show up the next day.

Of course, there's a glaring flaw. The slave can't leave. The worker can, in theory, but typically won't due to the risk of extended unemployment. Are you perhaps familiar with Marxist theory? The capitalist must pay workers enough so they can reproduce their labor the next day, which is the essence of wage slavery; you earn enough money to survive, but not enough to better yourself.

I think that's more evil than a government which enforces a living wage, and provides free education for all, at the expense of those with more than enough already.

Viole wrote

...Are you perhaps familiar with Marxist theory?...

Judging from what you just wrote, I think that question is mine to ask: Are you familiar with Marxist Theory?

From 'Wage Labour and Capital', chapter 4;

"The cost of production of simple labor-power amounts to the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus determined are called the minimum of wages."

Translation: the cost of a laborer is, at minimum, the money required for the continued existence of the laborer, including the raising of a new generation of workers.

... to answer your question; yes.

If you're talking about the old slaver's argument, though, that doesn't come out of Marxist theory. Rich, slave-owning christians managed to come up with that one all on their own.

"Since the time of Andrew Jackson this country has increasingly become a plutocracy and no longer a democracy."

I must vehemently disagree. The United States was always more of a plutocratic then a democratic republic.

Ocmpoma: I must vehemently disagree. The United States was always more of a plutocratic then a democratic republic.

You are right of course, there has never been true democracy on this planet just as there has never been true socialism, communism or any other pure forms of governments.

V-O-R: What on earth is “jungle capitalism”??!!??

Where there is no compassion left in the system. Free enterprise reaches cut throat proportions. Corporations pull more power than the society itself. Its an expression the forefathers used when discussing corporations and their threat to democracy.

Hmm…so working VOLUNTARILY to earn your own living is slavery? Then what is NOT slavery?—getting your sustenance for free?—at WHOSE expense?—or does proper human sustenance grow on trees?

Voluntarily? Not many work voluntarily my friend, I'm afraid. People work out of necessity for survival. I'm fine with that, we all need to work, it can give humanity a sense of purpose and avenue of expression. This system however, is still not much different from slavery in my opinion. People can exercise little choice concerning their master: Mcdonalds, Burger King, the factory down the street, etc. Either way, they will make below living wage. If they want to increase their opportunities they have to go to school obviously. But wait! We must pay for higher education, where do they get capital? Loans? Gee... nice system. Its a perpetual state of endentured servitude. We sell our own bodies for survival to the wealthy to use to try and get out of a never ending debt. This is how the majority of Americans live.

And why is making a profit an intrinsically demonic thing? Should people work without reward--on what grounds? By now you should ask yourself why socialism has never worked, and will never ever work—it’s EVIL.

Making profit isn't instrinsically evil. I'm for free enterprise. However, making a profit by paying your workers below living wage is socially irresponsible. It is immoral in my opinion. We know full well that a corporation is capable of earning profit without sacrificing the standard of living of its employees. Socialism has never worked just like a true democracy never worked because of tyrannical corruptors. Socialism has worked in small scale societies however just as democracy has, because the aim of all of its members was the welfare of the society versus the interest of the few. Look, I'm not advocating neither Jungle Capitalism nor outright socialism. I truly believe these concepts can be hybrid to make a better and more productive society. There is no need to sacrifice profits, no need to sacrifice free enterptise but we can rightfully demand that all people have necessities before a select few get overwhelming luxuries at our expense. We can create a more equal society while still allowing the pleasure of reward from your labor. Why is this "evil"?

I see, you guys—or girls—have never opened a book on Capitalism—well, some of it isn’t your fault. Capitalism is your best friend though, I’d suggest that you get to know it and uphold it as best as you can.

I’m starting to see the some of the self-negating falsehoods in your posts, so I’m going to lay them out before we get any further—if we are to get any further. Or I suspect people are going to drop and switch context on me every time they run into a wall, so here we go:


------------------------------
---Mr. Mowen sighed. “Things aren’t right,” he said. “The Equalization of Opportunity Bill was a sound idea. There’s got to be a chance for everybody. It’s a rotten shame if people like Quinn take unfair advantage of it. Why didn’t he let somebody else start manufacturing ball bearings in Colorado? ... I wish the Colorado people would leave us alone. That Stockton Foundry out there had no right going into the switch and metal business for years, I have the right of seniority, it isn’t fair, it’s dog-eat-dog competition, newcomers shouldn’t be allowed to muscle in. Where am I going to sell switches and signals? There were two big railroads in Colorado. Now the Phoenix-Durango’s gone, so there’s just Taggart Transcontinental left. It isn’t fair—their forcing Dan Conway [owner of P-D] out. There’s got to be room for competition…And I’ve been waiting six months for an order of steel from Orren Boyle—and now he says he can’t promise me anything, because Rearden Metal has shot his market to hell, there’s a run on that metal, Boyle has to retrench. It isn’t fair—Rearden being allowed to ruin other people’s markets that way…And I want to get some Rearden Metal, too. I need it—but try and get it! He has a waiting line that would stretch across three states [this, due to the passing of the bill Mowen is praising]—nobody can get a scrap of it, except his old friends. People like Wyatt and Dannagger and such. It isn’t fair. It’s discrimination. I’m just as good as the next fellow. I’m entitled to a share of that Metal.” ~ Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUUGED.

Well, that’s the anti-capitalist mentality in a nutshell: it’s full of unresolved contradictions. They want to win the lottery today, and at the same time, they advocate soaking the rich tomorrow. So, I suggest you pick a camp and stick with it. If you still can’t understand what’s stated up there, here are some non-fictional examples:
-------------------------------------

---Despite the obvious self-contradictions, capitalism is simultaneously denounced for impoverishing the masses and for providing them with “affluence”, for being a rigid class society and for being dominated by the upstart nouveau riche, for its competition and for its lack of competition, for its militarism and for its pacifism, for its atheism and for its support of religion, for its oppression of women and for its destruction of the family by making women financially independent. ~George Reisman, CAPITALISM.

----------------------------------
---Most anticapitalistic charges, absurd as they are taken singly, are presented to the public in pairs, both sides of which are wrong. We are bombarded by a stream not only of falsehoods, but of contradictory, self-canceling falsehoods, such as:

“Capitalism is the system of coercive monopolies” and from the same man or professor the next hour or month, “Capitalism is the system of cutthroat competition.”

“Capitalism debases men by creating hunger” and “Capitalism subverts morality by creating affluence.”

“Capitalist greed causes inflation” and “the gold standard leads to an inadequate supply of money and credit.”

“Capitalism is another name for materialistic imperialism” and “Conscription is necessary because no one would fight even a war of self-defense under a free system.”

“Capitalism is hostile to invention [followed by stories of industrialists allegedly suppressing new discoveries]” and “Capitalism leads to an intolerable rat-race of inventions.”

“Capitalism is fine for the productive genius, but what about the common man?” and “Capitalism is fine for the common man, but what about the genius? [because a rock star makes more money than a physicist].”

“Capitalism is impracticable in our complex modern world—we are too advanced” and “Capitalism is impracticable in the undeveloped world—they are not advanced enough”. ~ Leonard Peikoff, OBJECTIVISM.

Well, there it is: this should show you how utterly absurd objections to capitalism are. Only a little bit of thinking is needed to see this: as a human being, socialism is your worst enemy, and capitalism is your only friend.
----------------------------------

Viole wrote

You know, law of the jungle? Survival of the fittest?

Another myth. Don’t you know that all historical evidence is against that proposition. Capitalism is NOT social Darwinism—that was false idea popularized by another idiot who never understood capitalism: Herbert Spencer.
-------------------------------------
---As von Mises has shown, the economic competition that takes place under capitalism is radically different than the biological competition that prevails in the animal kingdom. In fact, its character is diametrically opposite. The animal species are confronted with scarce, nature-given means of subsistence, whose supply they are unable to increase. Man, by virtue of his possession of reason, can increase the supply of everything on which his survival and well-being depend. Thus, instead of the biological competition of animals striving to grab off limited supplies of nature-given necessities, with the strong succeeding and the weak perishing, economic competition under capitalism is a competition in who can increase the supply of things the most, with the outcome being practically everyone surviving longer and better.

Totally unlike lions in the jungle, who must compete for a limited supply of animals such as zebras and gazelles, by means of the power of their senses and limbs, producers under capitalism are in competition for a limited supply of dollars in the hands of consumers, which they compete for by means of offering the best and most economical products their minds can devise. Since such competition is a competition in the positive creation of new and additional wealth, there are no genuine long-run losers as the result of it. There are only winners.

The competition of farmers and farm-equipment manufacturers enables the hungry and weak to eat and grow strong; that of pharmaceutical manufacturers enables the sick to recover their health; that of eye-glass and hearing-aid manufacturers enables many who otherwise could not see or hear, to do so. So far from being a competition whose outcome is "the survival of the fittest," the competition of capitalism is more accurately described as a competition whose outcome is the survival of all, or at least of more and more, for longer and longer and ever better. The only sense in which only the "fittest" survive is that it is the fittest products and fittest methods of production that survive, until replaced by still fitter products and methods of production, with the effects on human survival just described.

As von Mises has also shown, with his development of Ricardo's law of comparative advantage into the law of association, there is room for all in the competition of capitalism. Even those who are less capable than others in every respect have a place. In fact, in large measure, competition under capitalism, so far from being a matter of conflict among human beings, is a process of organizing that one great system of social cooperation known as the division of labor. It decides at what point in this all-embracing system of social cooperation each individual will make his specific contribution—who, for example, and for how long, will be a captain of industry, and who will be a janitor, and who will fill all the positions in between.

In this competition, each individual, however limited his abilities, is enabled to outcompete all others, however superior to him in their abilities they may be, for his special place. Quite literally, and as an everyday occurrence, those with abilities no greater than required to be a janitor are able to outcompete, hands down, without question, the world's greatest productive geniuses—for the job of janitor. For example, Bill Gates might be so superior an individual that in addition to being able to revolutionize the software industry, he might be able to clean five times as many square feet of office space in the same time as any janitor now living, and do it better. But if Gates can earn a million dollars an hour running Microsoft, and janitors can be found willing to work for, say, $10 an hour, their readiness to perform the job at one one-hundred thousandth of the hourly rate Gates would require, so far dwarfs their lesser abilities that it is they who are "hors de concours" in this case.

At the same time, because productive geniuses are free to succeed in revolutionizing products and methods of production, those with abilities no greater than required to be janitors are able to enjoy not only food, clothing, and shelter, but even such products as automobiles, television sets, and personal computers, products whose very existence they could probably never have even dreamed of on their own.

The “losses” associated with competition are at most short-run losses only. For example, once the blacksmiths and horse breeders put out of business by the automobile found other lines of work on a comparable level, the only lasting effect of the automobile on them was that they too, in their capacity as consumers, came to enjoy the advantages of the automobile over the horse. Similarly, farmers using mules, who were driven out of business by the competition of farmers using tractors, did not die of starvation, but simply had to change their line of work, and when they did so, they along with everyone else enjoyed both a more abundant supply of food and of other products as well, which other products could be produced precisely on the foundation of labor released from agriculture.

Even in those cases in which an isolated competition results in an individual having to spend the remainder of his life at a lower station than he enjoyed before, for example, the owner of a buggy-whip factory having to live for the rest of his life as an ordinary wage earner after being put out of business by the automobile—even he cannot reasonably claim that competition has harmed him. The most he can reasonably claim is merely that from this point on, the immense gains he derives from competition are less than the still more immense gains he derived from it previously. For competition is what underlies the production and supply of everything he continues to be able to buy and is what is responsible for the purchasing power of every dollar of his and everyone else's income. And, of course, it proceeds to raise his real income from the level to which it was set back. Indeed, under capitalism, competition proceeds to raise the standard of living of the average wage earner above that of even the very wealthiest people in the world a few generations earlier. (Today, for example, the average wage earner in a capitalist country has a standard of living higher than that even of Queen Victoria, in probably every respect except the ability to employ servants.) ~ George Reisman, “Some Fundamental Insights into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism”

On a little sidenote, I wish to mention that the fact that Capitalism yields great results in its application is not it’s justification or validation—but merely a consequence. The justification of the rightfulness of Capitalism is that it is the only moral system ever devised by Man, the only system that respects individual rights, and is based on a principle of justice.

Charlotte wrote

Where there is no compassion left in the system.

Compassion is a disgusting word. It’s what you feel for squashed bugs. Capitalism is not based on compassion. It’s based on JUSTICE. Now grow some bones—no offense.

Charlotte wrote

Voluntarily? Not many work voluntarily my friend, I'm afraid. People work out of necessity for survival.

How is THAT capitalism’s fault? That’s the nature of reality, it’s a metaphysically given absolute. Nothing is free in this universe. If you wish to live, under whatever system, you must work—or someone has to work to feed you, in which case you become a parasite. Know this: whenever you get something for nothing, you better be sure that somewhere, sometime, someone is getting NOTHING for HIS something. It doesn’t matter if it is you who des the stealing, or if it’s the government that loots for you. The principle is the same, and it always necessitates an injustice.

And I don’t think you want to define “slavery” the way I think you’re doing. That would make every human relationship slavery.

charlotte wrote

If they want to increase their opportunities they have to go to school obviously. But wait! We must pay for higher education, where do they get capital? Loans? Gee... nice system.

What? You want it for free?—at whose expense? No one’s need is a rightful claim on anyone else’s hard earned property. I should also remind you at this point that the government is not a productive entity—all it does and can do is spend. It produces nothing, absolutely nothing.

Charlotte wrote

Its a perpetual state of endentured servitude. We sell our own bodies for survival to the wealthy to use to try and get out of a never ending debt. This is how the majority of Americans live.

And how is this caused by capitalism?

Charlotte wrote

I'm for free enterprise.

No you’re not.

Charlotte wrote

However, making a profit by paying your workers below living wage is socially irresponsible.

What is “social responsibility”?

And just so you know, rise in prices is actually caused by government intervention with such things as “minimum wage laws”—which make prices go higher. While in a true capitalist society, companies would actually work to produce the best product, at the cheapest price while still trying to maintain the best labor force—by paying high wages. No one loses—as there is no conflict of interest among rational men. This is why, to the extent that a nation is capitalistic, its standard of living rises. This should be obvious.

It is government intervention that ruins people’s lives—as controls breed more and more controls—not capitalism.

Charlotte wrote

Look, I'm not advocating neither Jungle Capitalism nor outright socialism.

I have no idea what “jungle capitalism” is—and for the record, there cannot be any middle of the road between Capitalism and socialism.

Charlotte wrote

Why is this "evil"?

It is evil because you advocate sacrifice. It is evil because it is detrimental to human life. You should know that there is no conflict of interest among rational men, and in reason, and the gain of one man is not the loss of another. Wealth is not some static quantity that has to be looted. Wealth is made, i.e.: produced. There is enough for everyone who’s willing to work for it.

Charlotte wrote

You are right of course, there has never been true democracy on this planet just as there has never been true socialism, communism or any other pure forms of governments.

Democracy is a bad political system—it’s nothing but the tyrannical rule of the majority, and it has been tried: Ancient Greece, and as example of its malevolence, I submit the murder of Socrates.

True socialism has been tried: I submit the Nazis (National SOCIALISTS)—and as example of its malevolence, I submit the holocaust.

True Communism has been tried—You cannot be more communist than the USSR—and well, we all know how THAT ended.

The only system that has never been tried in history is Capitalism—and by capitalism, I mean full-fledged, pure, unbridled, LAISSEZ-FAIRE.

"But we do find countless shipments of birth control pills to nunneries for the sake of keeping them from getting knocked up by the priests"

WOW! Never heard that one, but I would love it to add it to my arsenal if you have proof. Source please Charlotte!

To say that the USSR was a communist economy is to say that Japan is capitalist.

I am so glad that V-O-R added that quote of Charlotte's about Jungle Capitalism because I really didn't know what justified such a tirade in defense of cpaitalism when the bulk of her point was relating to democracy vs socialism etc.

I do want to correct one point: Nazi-ism was NOT pure socialism, if anything it was a hybrid of fascism and socialism. USSR communism was NOT a pure form. Read some Marx and Engels and study the workings of the Soviet Union.

You are correct in saying that Capitalism has not yet been given free rein and to this I say, perhaps for the best.

I strongly believe that the discussion of which system is better or worst is actually a red herring. The real issue, is the inability of mankind to make ANY system work as designed without introducing a corrupting element. That is why small scale social systems (e.g some kibbutz) work, but as soon as they are scaled, they fall apart. The US is a fantastic study in the unbridled greed of man at work. Without sufficient regulatory oversight, we get Enrons, 3Coms, etc. I am not sure how "pure" capitalism would deal with this. In theory, an efficient market would ultimately reveal the corruption and the system would be self regulating. However, in the interim, there is a lot of time to screw the system, others, and frankly, behave in an "evil" and anti-social fashion.

As long as mankind remains the messed up nihlistic creature that he is, no system will work. So lets talk about selective reproduction or means tested family planning, or some other such rapid selection process that will allow us to indulge in pure forms of socio-political systems.....woops maybe I am a clsoet fascista t heart?

Libertarians. Where to begin... you're not going to change my opinion by quoting Ayn Rand. I found her creepy, even when I respected capitalism. Capitalism as the libertarians define it, however, is just as utopian as pure marxism, which I might note that you, like most capitalists, show no understanding of.

The trouble is, Adam Smith's typically misunderstood 'invisible hand'--and I'm not accusing you of misunderstanding--depends entirely on the engagement of the population. It's how people spend their money, and I just don't think that the majority is capable of paying enough attention to fill that role. They'll just end up following some demagogue or another, and we'll end up with the same corporate cronyism we saw in the late nineteenth century, and again today. It's pretty much the same problem that pure communism--not the Soviet crap, but what Marx actually intended--has. One charismatic demagogue, and if people aren't paying attention, the system is ruined.

Let me see if I can find another quote for you... I don't quite remember who it came from, so... I think this is it. From State and Revolution by Leon Trotsky;

To prevent the true meaning of his struggle against anarchism from being distorted, Marx expressly emphasized the "revolutionary and transient form" of the state which the proletariat needs. The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes.

So communists and anarchists are essentially the same, except in the means of achieving their goal. The most misunderstood thing about communism is that is has no government--socialism has a government, but it must be dissolved to become communism.

In any case, I'm not really interested in a political debate. Religion and politics are both pointless to debate over the internet, but I take politics far more seriously than I do religion. Plus I have to do more digging for references, which I hate... so I'm going to drop out. I hope you won't hold it against me.

Yours in friendship,
Viole Kérinav

Can't believe I'm going to say this...

*squirms in chair*
*gnashes teeth*

You got it right VOR. Good job.

To Lurker, no more calling you dirty names behind your back in front of your face anymore, you earned it.
VoR, good job defending capitalism.

Viole,

I am not a libertarian, nor am I an anarchist.

It was never my intent or goal to change your opinion, or anyone else’s for that matter—that is your own assumption, NOT mine. I simply stated a fact—said fact being: Capitalism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism, and I believe I’ve made my point. The facts are there. The rational few will know what to do with them.

I couldn’t care less of anyone’s subjective opinions of Ayn Rand—be they positive or negative, as such things do not add to, or detract from the validity of her argument—which I haven’t seen you refute.

I understand Communism perfectly—if anything, maybe the masses that support it, don’t. You seem to understand it, too—which is why you also know that it does not and cannot ever ‘work’—and not because it is ‘noble’ (it’s not, it’s the most evil thing ever devised), but because it is false self-contradictory in theory, and therefore cannot be practiced—as reality does not accept contradictions.

I trust that you also know that how ‘good’ a theory is, is determined by how well it works in practice. The outcomes of socialism--in any form--are clear for everyone who chooses to see.

No, I’m not interested in pointless debate either. I’ve discussed Capitalism/Socialism here before, and I don’t see any ‘fun’ or productivity in repeating myself. The absurd, contradictory and self-canceling objections to capitalism are already given in my previous post.

And no, I am in no place to hold anything against you if your wish (for whatever reason, or lack thereof) is to “drop out”. I trust that you are not here for my convenience, just as I am not here for yours.

Good day.

Sir Sin-O-Lot wrote

To Lurker, no more calling you dirty names behind your back in front of your face anymore, you earned it.

Not sure if that's a compliment or a slap. :/

VOR did a good job....really.