The stupidity we face:

[malkusm]

"Like it or not, the reason for society is not to earn the most profits. It's to serve the people. It's not just nice to have a government or organization to ensure that the market doesn't have total freedom, when the needs of the people conflict with what is most profitable; it's a requirement. A socialist requirement for a social species, for their communal benefit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knB6RgYFKdY

Feel free to puke at any time during this video. :(

[idiom]

Surpise. There are values other than money.

[micahnelson]

I think the problem here is a failure to communicate properly.

Murder is illegal, and it would follow that hiring a hitman is illegal. Is this an invasion of the free market? No of course not. Just because some crime is committed by a business doesn't mean they can get away with it (in a perfect world of course).

The problem is that most regulation goes beyond protecting liberty (Fraud, False advertising, product safety accountability, etc) and go into market manipulation (punitive tax schemes, import/export laws, quotas, price fixing, etc)

A government is a good thing as long as it can be controlled by the people, and for that reason I dont embrace anarchy or anarcho capitalism.


Anarcho capitalism inevitably leads to oppression by the richest and most powerful businesses. Governments begin to bow to the banks when the price is right, as we have seen through history.

[Truth Warrior]

It's even MORE stupid. :( :rolleyes:

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

[Theocrat]

This doesn't have to be an "either, or" issue. As a Christian with capitalist convictions, I believe both can be true and necessary for society at the same time. We can earn profits and serve the needs of the people. As a matter of fact, that is what God requires us as a people. He blesses us with abundance so that we may be able to provide for those with less abundance. This is where charity and liberty come in.

Though no one should be compelled by a government to give of their abundance, I believe love necessitates that serving the needs of others is a natural flow from profit. That's why we feed the hungry, clothe the poor, educate the ignorant, house the homeless, heal the sick, etc. I dare to say that the purpose of profits is not just to hoard into one's own closet for their own selfish gain (as the Randians would believe), but rather, it is to serve the needs of other people in a responsible and loving manner.

[Truth Warrior]

This doesn't have to be an "either, or" issue. As a Christian with capitalist convictions, I believe both can be true and necessary for society at the same time. We can earn profits and serve the needs of the people. As a matter of fact, that is what God requires us as a people. He blesses us with abundance so that we may be able to provide for those with less abundance. This is where charity and liberty come in.

Though no one should be compelled by a government to give of their abundance, I believe love necessitates that serving the needs of others is a natural flow from profit. That's why we feed the hungry, clothe the poor, educate the ignorant, house the homeless, heal the sick, etc. I dare to say that the purpose of profits is not just to hoard into one's own closet for their own selfish gain (as the Randians would believe), but rather, it is to serve the needs of other people in a responsible and loving manner. What are the moral impacts and implications of forced "charity" under coercion and threat of punishment for resistance?

[Theocrat]

What are the moral impacts and implications of forced "charity" under coercion and threat of punishment for resistance?

From the perspective of civil government, one moral impact or implication of "forced charity" is the belief that people ought to give of their abundance (particularly those classified as "rich") because it is the right thing to do for the benefit of everyone. Of course, this makes the need for charity totally arbitrary, for the civil government has no legitimate basis to impose standards of giving upon those in its civil jurisdiction.

This leads to another impact of "forced charity" when the civil government institutes taxation laws which inherently punish the rich for being economically successful. The money taken from profitable firms and households by taxation for redistribution to the needs of the poor is itself an act of theft by the government. If a firm or household fails to comply, they face heavy penalties for not allowing such theft to take place from the civil government which sees itself as providing for the "general welfare of its citizens."

As I've said before, true charity comes from love for one's neighbor through acts of compassion. The Church has a history of that, for she has seen her mission as providing for the needs of the less unfortunate by means of the "Great Commission." Other private charities and organizations have done so, as well. When the civil government seeks to be charitable to the needs of the poor, it can only do so by force. Thus, it steps outside of its divine and jurisdictional boundaries every time it performs a supposed "act of compassion." That is not charity at all.

[The_Orlonater]

A government is a good thing as long as it can be controlled by the people, and for that reason I dont embrace anarchy or anarcho capitalism.


Anarcho capitalism inevitably leads to oppression by the richest and most powerful businesses. Governments begin to bow to the banks when the price is right, as we have seen through history.


Oppression of what kind?

[micahnelson]

Oppression of what kind?

Imminent domain being used to secure desirable property for private interests, public money used to cover private debts, legislation supporting producers over consumers, banning of substances to prevent competition, tax structures designed to stop the growth of small business.

This is what goes on in a "mixed" economy. In reality, we have anarchocapitalism for a small group of corporations and banks. There are no laws ruling what they do, and no courts to convict them.

[Truth Warrior]

From the perspective of civil government, one moral impact or implication of "forced charity" is the belief that people ought to give of their abundance (particularly those classified as "rich") because it is the right thing to do for the benefit of everyone. Of course, this makes the need for charity totally arbitrary, for the civil government has no legitimate basis to impose standards of giving upon those in its civil jurisdiction.

This leads to another impact of "forced charity" when the civil government institutes taxation laws which inherently punish the rich for being economically successful. The money taken from profitable firms and households by taxation for redistribution to the needs of the poor is itself an act of theft by the government. If a firm or household fails to comply, they face heavy penalties for not allowing such theft to take place from the civil government which sees itself as providing for the "general welfare of its citizens."

As I've said before, true charity comes from love for one's neighbor through acts of compassion. The Church has a history of that, for she has seen her mission as providing for the needs of the less unfortunate by means of the "Great Commission." Other private charities and organizations have done so, as well. When the civil government seeks to be charitable to the needs of the poor, it can only do so by force. Thus, it steps outside of its divine and jurisdictional boundaries every time it performs a supposed "act of compassion." That is not charity at all.

Well what else can you really expect when Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html) ?