Capitalism/Socialism

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1342750 wrote: Would you agree that spiritual leaders should not become embroiled in temporal affairs?
No. I agree that spiritual leaders should not speak of political matters from the pulpit, or claim to represent the church when giving political opinions. That's got little to do with the statement "Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering." Being Christian, or claiming any other religion, doesn't preclude being a citizen and exercising the rights of a citizen. Mike Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas. He made an unsuccessful bid for President, and is now a political pundit. He kept his political profession separate from his church profession (or calling), as he should.

[Ted]

I am of the opinion that the church as institution should stay out of partisan politics. However the church as church is obligated to speak out against injustice, oppression and tyranny whether from the pulpit or otherwise. That was a large part of Jesus's life and ministry. Can we, dare we, do any less.

Shalom

Ted

[gmc]

xyz;1342742 wrote: Was alluded to in post #8. One may suppose that it meets general agreement.


You alluded to it that doesn't mean we all agreed with you. see the next post #9.

[xyz]

gmc;1342773 wrote: You alluded to it that doesn't mean we all agreed with you. see the next post #9.
See it, do. It made no direct reference to or argument against this statement:

'For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society'

No post has controverted that statement.

[Accountable]

Capitalism isn't a framework for society. It's a framework for business.

[xyz]

Accountable;1342790 wrote: Capitalism isn't a framework for society. It's a framework for business.
Capitalism is far more than a business model. It's an economic system, like feudalism or 'classical' economies based on slavery. Economics always defines social relationships.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1342785 wrote: See it, do. It made no direct reference to or argument against this statement:

'For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society'

No post has controverted that statement.Perhaps if you listed the technicalities and defined what a just society is, responding to the post would be easier.

[gmc]

xyz;1342785 wrote: See it, do. It made no direct reference to or argument against this statement:

'For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society'

No post has controverted that statement.


You dodged my question.

Why do you think that? That is a laissez faire version of capitalism that is arguably anti-capitalist since no regulation will lead inevitably to the collapse of a capitalist economy.


For technical reasons, capitalism cannot create a just society


What technical reasons? You are going to have to be a bit more specific than that. I presume you can list them.

OK then let me be be more forthright. That is a load of bollocks. capitalism is an economic framework for society put forth in the 18th century within which are many elements of what we now recognise and call as socialist social policies which are necessary for a capitalist economy to function properly. It also addresses how society should be ordered and was being put forward as a way to progress beyond feudalism to a more equitable society A just society is necessary for capitalism to function as at it's kernel is the basic concept that all must have equal opportunity and allowing a few to own everything is a very bad idea and leads to warfare.

posted by xyz

Capitalism is far more than a business model. It's an economic system, like feudalism or 'classical' economies based on slavery. Economics always defines social relationships.






Socialism, is also an economic system in that it addresses the distribution of wealth and a social system in that it addresses how that society should be ordered and who should control the mean of production. Revolutionary socialists and especially Marx got things badly wrong there was never going to be a logical and natural move to a communist society all that would do is swop one set of masters for another. He saw what he wanted to see and ignored the significant changes industrialisation would bring seeing only the pressure cooker and not the relief valves. The dictatorship of the proletariat would remain just than. If you look at russia and china, still socialist but now also developing their own capitalist economies, out of necessity because you have to allow people to make their own way economically and reward them for it. The two go hand in hand they are not mutually exclusive. Both can turn to dictatorship, one fascist the other communist and there will always be that tendency. America has become fascist in the last thirty years or so but there are structures in place that will turn it again in the future. Russia and china will find their own solutions. There is a basic sense that society should be fair and that always reasserts itself eventually. The US has very strong socialist instincts they just don't recognise them as such.

[xyz]

gmc;1342797 wrote: What technical reasons?
That question should have been asked in #9.

[gmc]

xyz;1342801 wrote: That question should have been asked in #9.


It's being asked now. Can you list them or not?

[xyz]

gmc;1342805 wrote: It's being asked now. Can you list them or not?
Of course.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1342801 wrote: That question should have been asked in #9.Hello, Captain Hindsight! :wah: Now thats about as in your face evasive as it gets.

GMC, ask him to define a 'just society', that should cough up a few laughs too.

Although I find myself agreeing with his premise, hes as sloppy as it gets with language for a guy who thinks hes pretty good with it.

[xyz]

duplicate deleted.

[Ted]

Then there is the problem of industries moving to Asia (Nike) in order to higher what amounts to slave labour in a sweat shop. This allows for maximum profits and little pay.

Shalom

Ted

[yaaarrrgg]

Ted;1342752 wrote: That raises a question in my mind. Should one stand back and watch oppression and tyranny without speaking out just because that person is Christian, Buddhist etc.?

Shalom

Ted


There's also a flipside to that too.

In the U.S. the Christian churches have almost overwelmingly fought against the oppression of large businesses, rich taxpayers, and working class fetuses. Anyone else is on their own. The danger of mixing religion with politicial affairs is that the religion itelf represents a consolidation of power and the politics corrupts the religion more than the religion reforms the politics.

For example if the secular government comes along and offers the same services the church does (like taking care of the sick and needy) the religious leaders see a threat to their business model and fight it vigourously. Where will their power base come from if all their inroads to converting people are cut off? Plus, how will they impose their 10% income tax, if people are already taxed for these services? There's a conflict of interest here. Then the polticians give kick-backs to the religious leaders (known as faith based initiatives) and don't ask many questions about how the money is spent.

[Ted]

yaaarrgg

That has not been my experience. The mainline churches today are barely staying afloat in many places. In Canada the churches are bound by law to distribute 80% of their after bills income to charitable works. I cannot speak for the fundamentalist churches. I would not deny that some churches are trying to exercise control to which they have no right but that most certainly is not all of them. In fact one church on this island tries to maintain tight control over its congregation. That reminds me of the 1960's book "Escape From Freedom". I think by Eric Fromm. Old but right on.

The RC churches in this diocese are also experiencing great financial difficulty.

That reminds me that after the economic fall of 2 years ago the big hue and cry in the US was to go back to business as usual. Now that was real bright since it was business as usual that got them into the mess the were and are in. The major corporations basically run the country. The big banks give absurd bonuses and in this case bonuses for failure. The big cry was for less regulation and Regan got rid of most of that before. Do some people never learn?

Then we can go back a few years to Bopal in India and the approximately 3000 deaths due to the poor maintenance at the Union Carbide plant. Once again greed was more important than peoples' lives.

Chrysler has many cars built in Mexico. Why? Cheap labour=more profits.

Unbridled capitalism is evil. Until we can dispose of greed (not likely) things will never change and certainly haven't in over 2000 years.

Personally I am a social democrat in theory. Mention the word "socialism" in the US and be prepared for problems. Talk about paranoia!

Shalom

Ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1342763 wrote: No. I agree that spiritual leaders should not speak of political matters from the pulpit, or claim to represent the church when giving political opinions. That's got little to do with the statement "Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering." Being Christian, or claiming any other religion, doesn't preclude being a citizen and exercising the rights of a citizen. Mike Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas. He made an unsuccessful bid for President, and is now a political pundit. He kept his political profession separate from his church profession (or calling), as he should.


The Rev. Ian Paisley is a minister but I wouldn't even count him as a Christian, never mind a spiritual leader.

To my way of thinking, the mindset required to be involved in day to day politics is incompatible with the mindset required to be a spiritual leader and Ian Paisley is an (admittedly extreme) example of that.

[gmc]

xyz;1342806 wrote: Of course.


Then give us all the benefit of your erudition and do so.

posted by ted

Then there is the problem of industries moving to Asia (Nike) in order to higher what amounts to slave labour in a sweat shop. This allows for maximum profits and little pay.

Shalom

Ted


and what happened when the public found out about it? Don' know about the states but there was a boycott in europe over it. It's bad publicity that affectcs sales.

posted by yaaarrrgg

Unbridled capitalism is evil. Until we can dispose of greed (not likely) things will never change and certainly haven't in over 2000 years.


I wouldn't use the word evil but unbridled greed is not capitalism, it's just greed, and since greed cannot be disposed of it must be regulated in some way.

[Ted]

Bryn

I can certainly agree with your comments on Ian Paisley. He has done nothing but incite anger and fighting.

However, as I addressed above the Christian as Christian is bound to speak out against oppression and injustice. Through partisan politics? That is questionable. Here our prime minister I would oppose anywhere.

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

gmc

I agree with you. Whatever one calls it is based on worldview I guess.

It is unfortunate that capitalism unbridled seem to attract the greedy.

Shalom

Ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Ted;1342853 wrote: Bryn

I can certainly agree with your comments on Ian Paisley. He has done nothing but incite anger and fighting.

However, as I addressed above the Christian as Christian is bound to speak out against oppression and injustice. Through partisan politics? That is questionable. Here our prime minister I would oppose anywhere.

Shalom

Ted


That's part of my point, a Christian is bound to speak out against oppression and injustics wherever it is found and from a moral viewpoint. If he is involved in day to day politics then "political considerations" could well prevent him from doing so. There is a conflict of interests in which moral certainty is bound to come out second best.

[xyz]

gmc;1342852 wrote: Then give us all the benefit of your erudition


When that's necessary.

[recovering conservative]

xyz;1342736 wrote: So it's unjustified to write:

'Ananias, and Sapphira -- who were slain by the Holy Spirit'


So, Peter tells them that they have lied to the Holy Ghost (in the KJV), but you say something else killed them! Not that it has any point to being included in this thread -- but, now I'm curious to hear how you propose that they were killed!

And, in case it gets lost in your constant trolling, the reason I mentioned their case is because this early Christian community we learn about in Acts, was clearly a communist community! Yet, somehow modern Christianity -- especially American-style Prosperity Gospel Christianity, teaches the exact opposite things that are found in the Bible. The greater outrage should be that, over the decades, the more mainstream liberal churches in America never called them on their BS; and now that they have generations taught that Christianity is a libertarian, capitalist religion, that is modern Christianity in America. The new Christianity is the enabler of oligarchs and worships greed.....and of course they don't offer much more than throw a few crumbs for the poor!

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342763 wrote: No. I agree that spiritual leaders should not speak of political matters from the pulpit, or claim to represent the church when giving political opinions. That's got little to do with the statement "Christians should not in anyway become involved in political issues or profiteering." Being Christian, or claiming any other religion, doesn't preclude being a citizen and exercising the rights of a citizen. Mike Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas. He made an unsuccessful bid for President, and is now a political pundit. He kept his political profession separate from his church profession (or calling), as he should.


Huck is a Christian Reconstructionist -- the pinnacle of building the new theocracy. Just by reading his interpretations of U.S. history, Separation of Church and State, and even Theodicy -- show us that he just a smooth talking acolyte of R.J. Rushdoony. | Huckabee Endorses His Christian Reconstructionist Arkansas Policy Adviser

[Ted]

I think Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

Once again I find myself in agreement with recovering conservative.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342867 wrote: So, Peter tells them that they have lied to the Holy Ghost
That does not mean that the Holy Spirit (to use modern English) killed them.

this early Christian community we learn about in Acts, was clearly a communist community!
In a non-Marxian sense, yes.

Yet, somehow modern Christianity -- especially American-style Prosperity Gospel Christianity
Is Prosperity Christian?

The greater outrage should be that, over the decades, the more mainstream liberal churches in America never called them
Perhaps liberals are not Christians, either.

There is no command for common ownership of property in the NT. However, there exist in the USA people calling themselves Christians who own great wealth, while others calling themselves Christians, in the USA and elsewhere, live in poverty or even starve. One may describe the wealthy ones as Christians; or one may not, on the ground that they do not display basic Christian characteristics.

[Ted]

Two parables come to mind: The wedding feast and Lazaris at the gate of the rich man's house. Then of course Jesus told the rich young ruler to go and sell all he had and distribue the proceeds to the poor. I don't think Jesus meant that we should give everything away but that we, a Christians, ore oblegated to look after the poor and the oppressed. No wealth of lack of has nothing to do with being Christian but what one does with the wealth one has is what is important. Does a Wall St. banker need millions a year while children starve to death. What about the poor in one's own country?

Shalom

Ted

[recovering conservative]

xyz;1342872 wrote: That does not mean that the Holy Spirit (to use modern English) killed them.
Could you just answer the question of what did kill them?

In a non-Marxian sense, yes.
Yes.

Is Prosperity Christian?


It looks to me as the antithesis of all traditional Christian teaching, but it takes in a lot of money, and in earlier times they were shunned by the mainstream churches. But now, with the money and power of people like Pat Robertson, they treat them as equals.

I wasn't just referring to the Prosperity Gospel in particular though. It is just one of the results of the American Christian churches avoiding everything that seemed socialistic, after the rise of Communism on the world stage. From the 1930's on, they started getting more nationalistic, and trumpeting the American economic system. In earlier times, it was the most fundamentalist church leaders who were the loudest critics of the business class in America. After WWII, they have been consistently found in bed with them!

Perhaps liberals are not Christians, either.


Some made Faustian bargains, like the American Catholic Church did when it joined Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organization back in the 70's. They decided to start tossing social justice overboard, and be in league with rightwingers just over the issue of abortion. And now, when the Catholic Church speaks on poverty issues, they have lost all of their credibility because the leadership played a role in enabling the present system to come about.



There is no command for common ownership of property in the NT.
You forgot what happened to Ananias and Sapphira already? They were killed for not giving ALL of their wealth to the common good; and that verse was an obvious warning of divine retribution towards any other holdouts.

It also needs to be said in the light of how U.S. conservatives have reinvented their Thanksgiving Myth, that the Puritan colonists were struggling with famine and malnutrition because they were literalists, and trying to follow the example in Acts to the letter! Now the American Right has totally repackaged the story as the Puritans later embrace of capitalism as being when they discovered Biblical principles!

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342882 wrote: Could you just answer the question of what did kill them?
Yes.

They were killed for not giving ALL of their wealth to the common good
Were they killed? If so, is that why they were killed?

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1342859 wrote: That's part of my point, a Christian is bound to speak out against oppression and injustics wherever it is found and from a moral viewpoint. If he is involved in day to day politics then "political considerations" could well prevent him from doing so. There is a conflict of interests in which moral certainty is bound to come out second best.It seems that you're implying that politics is inherently immoral.



Ted;1342869 wrote: I think Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Shalom

TedI started to ask what you think is his sheep of choice, but I don't think it's relevant. He's a pundit now. We don't take pundits seriously. Even Rush Limbaugh would be unsuccessful running for pres.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1342988 wrote: It seems that you're implying that politics is inherently immoral.






I'm saying that the moral imperative is not the number one consideration in making political decisions which has a far more pragmatic approach and many trade-offs have to be made in order to be successful.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1343014 wrote: I'm saying that the moral imperative is not the number one consideration in making political decisions which has a far more pragmatic approach and many trade-offs have to be made in order to be successful.
While many, many politicians have discarded the priciples they may have previously claimed to hold, in order to make "gains" as they defined the term, the practice is not necessary. In fact, I would argue that it does more harm than good. Over the years of compromise in the name of "progress" we in the US have completely forgotten that the country was founded on the principles of individual liberty, those principles having been abandoned in our headlong rush to be the strongest and richest. I would happily give up both to regain the title of being the freest.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1343025 wrote: While many, many politicians have discarded the priciples they may have previously claimed to hold, in order to make "gains" as they defined the term, the practice is not necessary. In fact, I would argue that it does more harm than good. Over the years of compromise in the name of "progress" we in the US have completely forgotten that the country was founded on the principles of individual liberty, those principles having been abandoned in our headlong rush to be the strongest and richest. I would happily give up both to regain the title of being the freest.This is an 18th century perspective.

[Ted]

When one lives in a country with many people freedom needs to have some constraints. No one must act in such a way as to negatively affect their neighbour. We must ultimately be considerate of the ultimate good for everyone. It is clear that in Acts even the early church was concerned about the whole community. No one could lord it over another. All were equal.

Shalom

Ted

[yaaarrrgg]

The early U.S. had some of the worst abuses of individual freedoms seen in the history of the country. Not only that, but the initial system collapsed into complete civil war.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1343035 wrote: This is an 18th century perspective.Chivalry is a 16th century concept. Eating with utensils goes back to before the 10th century. What's your point?



Ted;1343127 wrote: When one lives in a country with many people freedom needs to have some constraints. No one must act in such a way as to negatively affect their neighbour. We must ultimately be considerate of the ultimate good for everyone. It is clear that in Acts even the early church was concerned about the whole community. No one could lord it over another. All were equal.

Shalom

TedHi Ted. When I left here you'd been gone a long time. I'm glad to see you back.

I don't think anybody would disagree with what you say here, but that's because you're not really saying much. I'm of the view that we as individuals should act in the manner you describe, others here argue that the gov't should force us to act that way. What is your view?



yaaarrrgg;1343129 wrote: The early U.S. had some of the worst abuses of individual freedoms seen in the history of the country. Not only that, but the initial system collapsed into complete civil war.The initial system did not collapse. It was discarded in preference to complete civil war. It was not the system, it was the people running the system. The same can be said of socialism, communism, and benevolent dictatorships. They all work perfectly if only the people involved would do what they're supposed to do.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1343161 wrote: Chivalry is a 16th century concept. Eating with utensils goes back to before the 10th century. What's your point?



I've made my point.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1343161 wrote: The initial system did not collapse. It was discarded in preference to complete civil war. It was not the system, it was the people running the system. The same can be said of socialism, communism, and benevolent dictatorships. They all work perfectly if only the people involved would do what they're supposed to do.


I recall that abolitionists could point to virtually nothing in the Bible to justify their anti-slavery views. Since slavery and exploitation was condoned by the God of the Bible, because the enslaved people had "sinned" and deserved this treatment. Disease and most all suffering tend to be cast in the Old Testament as being punishment.

Nor were there any laws against slavery, in the beginning. So, technically the South did nothing illegal, according to the Southern laws. They just didn't put priority of the federal laws over their own local laws, any more than the modern U.S. puts priority of the U.N. laws over U.S. law. But the Constitution is vague and poorly written on this point.

So IMO the practices that led to the meltdown were in line with the religion and the law of the day. That's what forced a rewrite of the Constitution (additional amendments).

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1343161 wrote:

I'm of the view that we as individuals should act in the manner you describe, others here argue that the gov't should force us to act that way. What is your view?


Government policy makers have a wide range of tools they can use to encourage people to do the right thing, or do the wrong things -- and for at least 30 years, the ideas of social conservatives and market libertarians have scripted government to bring out the worst in people!

Tax cuts for the rich! Cutting corporate taxes -- cutting estate taxes so the wealthy bastards can keep the money in the family and create new aristocracies -- cutting investment taxes so that playing games with money brings greater returns (for the people who've got it) than actually going out and working for your money......and there's more, but the point is that the tax policies that have been promoted as encouraging investment and starting new businesses, have in fact been a major cause of the new feudalism.

Globalization -- all of the free trade policies embraced by virtually everyone in government....what have they produced --- the hollowing out of manufacturing and multinational corporations that tell governments how they are going to balance their budgets. On that topic, one of President Obama's missions in India was to lobby on behalf of Walmart against an Indian law that prevents foreign retailers from having more than two stores in the country. Walmart wants to do to India what they did to the U.S. and Canada, and every other country where they have driven local retailers out of business and set up a better conduit for mass-produced cheap foreign imports! So, are the Indians going to swamped with Chinese imports if Obama is successful in getting them to change that law? And why the hell is this part of a president's duties in the first place? Is he the President of the United States, or the President of Walmart? And why has the MSM spent all of their time debating the BS about how much the trade mission costs, instead of focusing on what this and other trade missions have as their goals and objectives?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Federal government policies started to favour the Highway Lobby after WWII, and used bogus arguments from national security to build a massive highway system across the United States (and Canada). If the oil companies and the auto manufacturers had to pay for the building of their own road system that they wanted for the benefit of their products, we would not have had the abandonment of rail and other transit systems. The net results on the environment have helped push us towards an impending environmental catastrophe that we don't seem to be able to put the brakes on today. And speaking of environmental catastrophe -- another fallout of Neoliberalism is that oil companies are the 800 pound gorillas on the world stage today. They have decided to fight efforts to educate the public about climate change, and make sure governments keep directly and indirectly subsidize the exploration, development and production of oil. A reversal here...even simple things like removing tax credits and deductions that they should not be entitled to begin with, like a capital costs tax deduction on oil depletion from their wells, would do a lot to make alternative energy more economical, and show us the real costs of the Carbon Age. So far, we can't even get carbon taxes and even the middling cap and trade schemes through.

And, on a more local level, why are there subsidies for corn and soy production, and why aren't we taxing junk food higher and subsidizing healthy foods and fresh fruits and vegetables? Good health these days is getting very closely tied to economic status. You have to be middle class to afford a healthy diet, so even if poor people want to eat healthier, their limited budget leaves them with the subsidized crap that's loaded with soy byproducts and high fructose corn syrup. In a recent interview, Chris Hedges started his analysis of the decline in America with the example of Camden New Jersey (and what the hell are you doing for them Chris Christie?) where the once bustling factory town is completely hollowed out, and has about one third of the population unemployed or marginally employed. In downtown Camden, there are no supermarkets, so buying fresh vegetables and fruits isn't even an option for the locals....but fast food burger joints still manage to hang on and feed the locals.

Okay, this is a long road to travel to make the point that governments can offer progressive taxation to even out disparities in income. They can tax estates higher to force incompetent boobs of the GW Bush variety to get out and get real jobs; they can tax carbon and fund clean energy sources; they can focus their education concerns on improving the public system, instead of trying to ruin it; they can tax junk food and make healthy food cheaper, instead of the crap they are presently subsidizing. They can stop letting multinational corporations lead the politicians around into signing trade deals that only benefit the wealthy elites.

So, no doubt you consider these sorts of steps to be government intrusion in our lives, but I don't! A simple fact that libertarians should consider is that human societies are not just a haphazard collection of individuals that function perfectly if left alone. This philosophy is and has always been total bullcrap that somehow appeals to some people, but it is totally disconnected from reality. Every society has to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community, and during the last 30 years, the obsessive, narcissistic focus on the individual, has ruined community and social cohesion. If it's not fixed soon, the end result is either ruthless fascism or ruthless Marxism (more likely the former); but one thing we can guarantee is that ineffectual Weimar Republic democracies have a limited shelf life!

[Ted]

Recovering conservative:

Thanks for an excellent post. You did it well.

Here are some statistics from The Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox.

"In the 1960s, the overall income of the richest 20% of the world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%.Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's revenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the richest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries! It would take no more than 5 % of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all."

For any country that calls itself Christian and stands by while this happens is anything but Christian. It is a denial of the Biblical message and the message of Jesus himself. (Matt 25)

It was like this 2000 years ago. Obviously we have learned nothing in that time.

Shalom

Ted

[gmc]

posted by recovering conservative.

Globalization -- all of the free trade policies embraced by virtually everyone in government....what have they produced --- the hollowing out of manufacturing and multinational corporations that tell governments how they are going to balance their budgets.


And, on a more local level, why are there subsidies for corn and soy production, and why aren't we taxing junk food higher and subsidizing healthy foods and fresh fruits and vegetables?




Perhaps if you had free trade there might be a possible answer to the first part.

If you had free trade you wouldn't have subsidies. The US food subsidies are a major bone of contention in world trade, they allow the dumping of cheap food in third world countries to the detriment of local food producers who can't compete with imported foreign foodstuffs.

Why Does the US Government Give Out Farm Subsidies?

US Farm Subsidies and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives | Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

The EU do it as well and the common agricultural policy is a major bone of contention. Free trade is much talked about but little practised

Okay, this is a long road to travel to make the point that governments can offer progressive taxation to even out disparities in income. They can tax estates higher to force incompetent boobs of the GW Bush variety to get out and get real jobs; they can tax carbon and fund clean energy sources; they can focus their education concerns on improving the public system, instead of trying to ruin it; they can tax junk food and make healthy food cheaper, instead of the crap they are presently subsidizing. They can stop letting multinational corporations lead the politicians around into signing trade deals that only benefit the wealthy elites.


Sound like you are a socialist at heart. Most intelligent people are once they get away from thinking of it as the same russian communism.

Both capitalism and socialism have their roots in the age of enlightenment, both were inspired by the religion, many of the early employers who applied socialist ideas to their factories were quakers and the like, think of rowntree and hershey (I think it was) in the states. They just didn't call it socialism they were both capitalists and socialists the two are not mutually exclusive unless you buy in to the demented revolutionary logic of communism. A good christian would hopefully his hypothetically god given common sense on the matter.

The staring assumption is that all men are equal, get away from religion and you can start to see where you get the idea that women may have equal rights as well, you could not get that had the catholic church remained dominant. (try asking even the present day the pope what he thinks of the equality of women)

[Ted]

gmc

Right on.

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

My own country is no angel in this respect. We can send billions overseas to aid the poor and I fully support this but we cannot help out the impoverished in our own country. We have done a good job a legislating poverty. Shame on Canada. Of course our present government is the shame of Canada.

Shalom

Ted

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1343171 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343161][QUOTE=Ahso!;1343035][QUOTE=Accountable;1343025]While many, many politicians have discarded the priciples they may have previously claimed to hold, in order to make "gains" as they defined the term, the practice is not necessary. In fact, I would argue that it does more harm than good. Over the years of compromise in the name of "progress" we in the US have completely forgotten that the country was founded on the principles of individual liberty, those principles having been abandoned in our headlong rush to be the strongest and richest. I would happily give up both to regain the title of being the freest.This is an 18th century perspective.[/QUOTE]Chivalry is a 16th century concept. Eating with utensils goes back to before the 10th century. What's your point?[/QUOTE]I've made my point.[/QUOTE]Certainly not well, you haven't. You point out that my post is an 18th century perspective, with no comment or indication if you meant the comment to be positive or negative. If it was simply an observation with no purpose, then I would suspect that someone posted it while you were in the bathroom or something, because that's not your style.

A perspective is not automatically invalid simply because it was popular in the 18th century.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1343196 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1343161][QUOTE=yaaarrrgg;1343129][...] the initial system collapsed into complete civil war.The initial system did not collapse. It was discarded in preference to complete civil war. It was not the system, it was the people running the system. [/QUOTE]I recall that abolitionists could point to virtually nothing in the Bible to justify their anti-slavery views. Since slavery and exploitation was condoned by the God of the Bible, because the enslaved people had "sinned" and deserved this treatment. Disease and most all suffering tend to be cast in the Old Testament as being punishment.

Nor were there any laws against slavery, in the beginning. So, technically the South did nothing illegal, according to the Southern laws. They just didn't put priority of the federal laws over their own local laws, any more than the modern U.S. puts priority of the U.N. laws over U.S. law. But the Constitution is vague and poorly written on this point.

So IMO the practices that led to the meltdown were in line with the religion and the law of the day. That's what forced a rewrite of the Constitution (additional amendments).[/QUOTE]Amending is not rewriting. The amendment process is what gives the system its strength, its ability to stay valid over centuries.

Still, the war was not inevitable. The system did not force the war. The system did not collapse into complete civil war. A Machiavellian Washington chose war as an expedient means to an end, Constitution be damned. It is a scenario that's repeated many times in our history.

[xyz]

gmc;1343237 wrote: Both capitalism and socialism have their roots in the age of enlightenment
Socialism existed in the early church, as we have seen. The Enlightenment was made possible partly by capitalism, though also by Protestantism, though Enlightenment figures paid little tribute to either.

both were inspired by the religion
Nonsense. Capitalism was inspired by nothing other than physical self-interest, in conflict with the limitations of the medieval church, who wanted the profits of capitalism. It was capitalism and the vernacular Bible combined that led to the end of the monopolistic influence of the RCC.

many of the early employers who applied socialist ideas to their factories were quakers
Very, very few individual employers adopted socialist principles. Those values as found in legal statutes in Europe were hard won by workers, not employers, who were forced to improve conditions by legislation. Most early employers were Calvinists, using their religion to justify their wealth and the poverty of their workers! When that failed to convince, as it had to, most capitalists gave up any strong religious identification. Those few who saw the wisdom of worker welfare were not notably religious. Bentham was not particularly religious, and Owen actually thought all religions harmful. Socialist ideas applied by capitalists were generally unsuccessful or of limited success, anyway. Marx and Engels of course opposed religion. The Anglican church throughout this whole period into the 20th century was described as 'the Tory Party at prayer'. Quakerism after the early days was not necessarily very religious, anyway, and was never a mainstream Christian view. Methodism is the religious following that has had much the greatest influence on the development of socialist ideas; but even then, all religion has been a relatively minor factor in comparison to the simple desire of workers to better their conditions.

[Accountable]

Accountable;1343161 wrote: [QUOTE=Ted;1343127]When one lives in a country with many people freedom needs to have some constraints. No one must act in such a way as to negatively affect their neighbour. We must ultimately be considerate of the ultimate good for everyone. It is clear that in Acts even the early church was concerned about the whole community. No one could lord it over another. All were equal.

Shalom

TedI'm of the view that we as individuals should act in the manner you describe, others here argue that the gov't should force us to act that way. What is your view?


recovering conservative;1343219 wrote: Government policy makers have a wide range of tools they can use to encourage people to do the right thing, or do the wrong things -- and for at least 30 years, the ideas of social conservatives and market libertarians have scripted government to bring out the worst in people!

Tax cuts for the rich! Cutting corporate taxes -- cutting estate taxes so the wealthy bastards can keep the money in the family and create new aristocracies -- cutting investment taxes so that playing games with money brings greater returns (for the people who've got it) than actually going out and working for your money......and there's more, but the point is that the tax policies that have been promoted as encouraging investment and starting new businesses, have in fact been a major cause of the new feudalism.

Globalization -- all of the free trade policies embraced by virtually everyone in government....what have they produced --- the hollowing out of manufacturing and multinational corporations that tell governments how they are going to balance their budgets. On that topic, one of President Obama's missions in India was to lobby on behalf of Walmart against an Indian law that prevents foreign retailers from having more than two stores in the country. Walmart wants to do to India what they did to the U.S. and Canada, and every other country where they have driven local retailers out of business and set up a better conduit for mass-produced cheap foreign imports! So, are the Indians going to swamped with Chinese imports if Obama is successful in getting them to change that law? And why the hell is this part of a president's duties in the first place? Is he the President of the United States, or the President of Walmart? And why has the MSM spent all of their time debating the BS about how much the trade mission costs, instead of focusing on what this and other trade missions have as their goals and objectives?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Federal government policies started to favour the Highway Lobby after WWII, and used bogus arguments from national security to build a massive highway system across the United States (and Canada). If the oil companies and the auto manufacturers had to pay for the building of their own road system that they wanted for the benefit of their products, we would not have had the abandonment of rail and other transit systems. The net results on the environment have helped push us towards an impending environmental catastrophe that we don't seem to be able to put the brakes on today. And speaking of environmental catastrophe -- another fallout of Neoliberalism is that oil companies are the 800 pound gorillas on the world stage today. They have decided to fight efforts to educate the public about climate change, and make sure governments keep directly and indirectly subsidize the exploration, development and production of oil. A reversal here...even simple things like removing tax credits and deductions that they should not be entitled to begin with, like a capital costs tax deduction on oil depletion from their wells, would do a lot to make alternative energy more economical, and show us the real costs of the Carbon Age. So far, we can't even get carbon taxes and even the middling cap and trade schemes through.

And, on a more local level, why are there subsidies for corn and soy production, and why aren't we taxing junk food higher and subsidizing healthy foods and fresh fruits and vegetables? Good health these days is getting very closely tied to economic status. You have to be middle class to afford a healthy diet, so even if poor people want to eat healthier, their limited budget leaves them with the subsidized crap that's loaded with soy byproducts and high fructose corn syrup. In a recent interview, Chris Hedges started his analysis of the decline in America with the example of Camden New Jersey (and what the hell are you doing for them Chris Christie?) where the once bustling factory town is completely hollowed out, and has about one third of the population unemployed or marginally employed. In downtown Camden, there are no supermarkets, so buying fresh vegetables and fruits isn't even an option for the locals....but fast food burger joints still manage to hang on and feed the locals.

Okay, this is a long road to travel to make the point that governments can offer progressive taxation to even out disparities in income. They can tax estates higher to force incompetent boobs of the GW Bush variety to get out and get real jobs; they can tax carbon and fund clean energy sources; they can focus their education concerns on improving the public system, instead of trying to ruin it; they can tax junk food and make healthy food cheaper, instead of the crap they are presently subsidizing. They can stop letting multinational corporations lead the politicians around into signing trade deals that only benefit the wealthy elites.

So, no doubt you consider these sorts of steps to be government intrusion in our lives, but I don't! A simple fact that libertarians should consider is that human societies are not just a haphazard collection of individuals that function perfectly if left alone. This philosophy is and has always been total bullcrap that somehow appeals to some people, but it is totally disconnected from reality. Every society has to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community, and during the last 30 years, the obsessive, narcissistic focus on the individual, has ruined community and social cohesion. If it's not fixed soon, the end result is either ruthless fascism or ruthless Marxism (more likely the former); but one thing we can guarantee is that ineffectual Weimar Republic democracies have a limited shelf life!Man! You do like to drive the scenic route to get to a destination, don't you? :wah: I count 30 lines complaining about government acting in ways that negatively affect us "neighbors" and 5 in favor. That's 6-to-1 against, which would imply you agree with me, yet you don't. It's just not rational to give government 7 chances in the hopes that they'll get it right once.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

recovering conservative wrote: Every society has to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community [...]This is where we agree. What I'm trying to discuss is where that balance is. I'd be ecstatic if you could refrain from the over-the-top rhetoric and name-calling, and simply address the issue.

[gmc]

posted by xyz

Nonsense. Capitalism was inspired by nothing other than physical self-interest, in conflict with the limitations of the medieval church, who wanted the profits of capitalism. It was capitalism and the vernacular Bible combined that led to the end of the monopolistic influence of the RCC.


I am referring to the type of capitalism as laid down by adam smith in the wealth of nations. what inspired him was an egalitarianism the the protestants saw contained in the bible. The same egalitarianism the levellers saw - if all men are created equal then why are they not equal on earth. That is what I mean when I say they were inspired by their religion I am not talking about any particular one. That belief in equality is the basic starting point for both. Adam smith went to school and university in a scotland where primary education was compulsory and university open to all. By your lights he perhaps grew up in a socialist society but that access to education came from religious belief and specifically protestant religious belief and applying the term socialist to Scotland's education policy at the time is bit of a stretch. You apply capitalist and socialist labels to an age where they were not distinct. many of smiths proposals are to our eyes recognisably socialist. It is not simply the big bad capitalists against good honest socialists that marxist historians like to think it is. At least not imo. We don't necessarily need to agree with each other you know, apart from anything else it would be no fun.

Robert burns wrote thios in 1795

Robert Burns Country: A Man's A Man For A' That:

Is there for honest Poverty

That hings his head, an' a' that;

The coward slave-we pass him by,

We dare be poor for a' that!

For a' that, an' a' that.

Our toils obscure an' a' that,

The rank is but the guinea's stamp,

The Man's the gowd for a' that.




Then let us pray that come it may,

(As come it will for a' that,)

That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,

Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.

For a' that, an' a' that,

It's coming yet for a' that,

That Man to Man, the world o'er,

Shall brothers be for a' that.


To some it is a socialist battle cry to others a plaintive plea that we all become brothers and for a drunken night they might actually think that and the next day it's back to the real world. At it's heart is an egalitarian sentiment I always visualise as the man at the back of the crowd shouting who are you to tell me what to do and think yourself better. It's a sentiment that the levellers could understand but cromwell et al could not because they saw society as ordered by god, a medieval capitalist might have understood it as might a peasant but they wouldn't have had words to express it, concepts need words to come out before they can be understood and shared. That's what came from the age of enlightenment and the protestant reformation. To look back and think you can identify capitalists and socialists as some kind of clear cut category is just not possible. I don't think marx would have understood it either because he saw himself as one of those who would lead the inferior others to freedom. Scratch a revolutionary socialist today and you get an arrogant **** that is basically saying I want to be leader. Most of the 19th and early 20th century socialists saw straight through them and recognised you would just be swapping one set of masters for another. Marx got it wrong, there was only ever going to be a revolution where there was no give in society for change. Even then events turned on little things, individual characters, the weather the actions or inaction of one regiment or commander.

[xyz]

gmc;1343302 wrote: I am referring to the type of capitalism as laid down by adam smith in the wealth of nations.
Which began with Henry VII, if not earlier.