Re: National Allegiance
Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 4:49 am
As I said a few weeks ago, I have recently made the move to full preterism, yet I cannot see that it lends itself to your point. Just because I believe Christ has returned, I don't think it has changed the dynamics of my Christian lifestyle and style of warfare. Because he has returned, are Christians to now be a physical and political force?robbyyoung wrote:We should honor what God has ordained and support those Christians who are in the everyday fight to make this world a better place. Preterism sees this clearly, especially now that Yeshua reigns over all kingdoms of the earth, and I'm thankful for the historical account, witness if you will, that make it possible.
I truly don't see a time when I should vote. My opinion on politics will always stem from my Christian morality, and I don't see that I am ever supposed to enforce my morality on those who do not wish to live the same way. Even if my enforcement comes from swaying enough others to support my view and inflict it upon the minority who disagree with me.Singalphile wrote:Do you mean that you cannot imagine any situation in which you would vote or attempt to influence government in any way? And you would advise all others to make a decision now, as a matter of holiness, to never vote no matter what?jaydam wrote:I believe that a Christian voting in a democracy is tantamount to attempting to direct the sword of the state in self interest and the interest of Christ, and ultimately an attempt through a majority to maintaining an earthly "Christian" kingdom.
Is there a label for that sort of idea?
Well, I'm not ready to just accept that. What abuses do you have in mind? Why do you think a capitalist system would results in the concentration of power in the hands of a few, more than any other system? What hook and crook schemes do you see being used to hold onto such power?TheEditor wrote:My beef with Capitalist/Republican/Christians is that they believe that the free market (so-called) is some how immune to the abuses inherent in any system in which power winds up in the hands of a relative few ... one we accept that
I read over this again, and I'm not sure what alteration in meaning you have in mind. My intentions are to accurately understand and represent what you are saying, and I apologize for having missed something here.TheEditor wrote: However, you sort of truncated my post in such a way as to alter the it slightly.
I must admit to being a bit confused by this statement - I'm not perceiving why it of foremost importance that you are expressing that you don't have a beef with atheists. As far as I know, this wasn't the topic at hand. I had not stated, and I don't believe that I implied that, you have a beef atheist objectivists. Rather, the context is that you expressed that you have a beef with Christians who have certain political/economic beliefs. Since I would qualify, at least least partially, as the type of Christian you have a beef with, the context of our present discussion has pertained to Christians - not atheists.TheEditor wrote: I will say this; First and foremost, I thought I made it clear that I don't have a beef with an atheist that thinks like on Objectivist. It's the Christians that do that I take issue with.
Ok then, since you've heard it all before, I'll refrain from expounding on homesteading, praxeology, and subjective value theory to address this topic. If you can point me in the right direction towards gaining an understanding of where the flaws in those ideas are, that would be most welcome. I would only like to point out that you are consistently conflated capitalism with Ayn Rand's value system. There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable. Rather, what cannot be said to be demonstrating love and charity is the idea that it has to be compulsory as is characteristic of non-capitalists systems.TheEditor wrote: Likewise, when people run businesses that take advantage of the desperation of certain people (let's choose an easy example, that of the old "Company Store") then they are not demonstrating love and charity. If they are atheistic, or negative Deists (the kind that think God was just bored and shoved us here and walked away) then they are merely acting like animals, born to be led to slaughter. There is no over-arching concern for fellow man, only so far as they are chattel. ... Yes, before you dump a lot of arguments on here ....
I disagree with you here. If you know the topics I mentioned in the previous paragraph, then you'll know why that's a huge stretch. I'll refrain from dumping a lot of arguments here for now.TheEditor wrote: why is it such a stretch to accept that a paradigm designed to "capitalize" on ones personal ambitions and greed would somehow yield better fruitage? Its a rationally blind proposition on it's face.
Hey jaydam,jaydam wrote:As I said a few weeks ago, I have recently made the move to full preterism, yet I cannot see that it lends itself to your point. Just because I believe Christ has returned, I don't think it has changed the dynamics of my Christian lifestyle and style of warfare. Because he has returned, are Christians to now be a physical and political force?robbyyoung wrote:We should honor what God has ordained and support those Christians who are in the everyday fight to make this world a better place. Preterism sees this clearly, especially now that Yeshua reigns over all kingdoms of the earth, and I'm thankful for the historical account, witness if you will, that make it possible.
How do you think Christians are to be involved in the fight?
National allegiance can carry a citizen level vote, and even armed service going over to kill ISIS and other threats to the state and allied states.
I'm sure you can imagine laws or ordinances that don't have anything to do with enforcing your morality on anyone. In other cases, voting may be the opportunity to actually stop an evil thing from being enforced. We have rules or authorities throughout life - parents, employers, gov't - which involve punishment of some sort, and I am not sure where (or why) you draw the line on participation in those arrangements, nor do I understand why you seem to view the act of voting as necessarily and universally sinful.jaydam wrote:I truly don't see a time when I should vote. My opinion on politics will always stem from my Christian morality, and I don't see that I am ever supposed to enforce my morality on those who do not wish to live the same way. Even if my enforcement comes from swaying enough others to support my view and inflict it upon the minority who disagree with me.
There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable.
Thats alright. Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.TheEditor wrote: I apologize for my tendency to stray from topic. To be candid, I express my ideas better oratorically, using hyperbole and reductionism to good effect. It doesn't translate well to the written format. If you and I sat down for a cup of coffee, I am sure I could lay it out fairly well in about 15 minutes. Unfortunately, I follow a stream of consciousness and at times it doesn't "type" well. Perhaps it would "anti-type" well.
I have not studied it from all angles either. I have become well read in the classical and Austrian schools of thought, but I am have not made much of any effort to study others.TheEditor wrote: Your reading and command and passion on these issues far eclipses mine, I'm afraid. I will not pretend to have studied it from all angles in it's varieties and colors.
People will pursue their self-interests in any economic system - it is human nature to do so, and no economic system will change that. What distinguishes one economic system from another is how property rights are defined. Given that self interest is a fact of life, I do not see how other systems are offering a superior alternative. If I were to chose the "first and foremost feature of capitalism", I would have to say that it is not about self interest, but rather about respecting for the private property of others. Thus self-interest in capitalism results in human beings making efforts towards meeting the needs of others which is of beneficial to all. My conscience does poke me about the violation of property rights, but I can honestly say that it in no way has been poking me about favoring a capitalist economic system. Perhaps I am missing something, or my conscience is deficient.TheEditor wrote:There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable.
You are correct. And I don't think I implied otherwise. What I implied was that capitalism relies on pursuing self-interests first and foremost. No atheist-capitalist would deny this. Christian ones try to--painfully, I think, because their conscience pokes them a bit. But either way, I agree.
One question on this story: Why does the employer higher any Gringo's at all? If indeed the Gringo's and Mexicans provide the same value in their labor, then it seems to me his self-interest would no be to not higher any Gringo's at all. Gringo wages then go to zero, or are at least bid down to Mexican levels. But in the story this was not so. How can it be?TheEditor wrote: Now, you (or at least people in your camp) will argue "Yes, but they valued the money they were getting more than not having a job." That's true. But is it ethical? If you say "Yes", then where do you draw the line?
I agree. It is my view that a free market system is superior. It is not my view that it brings about some sort of Utopia.TheEditor wrote: Humans practice imperfect, humanly contrived systems, like imperfect humans. To say that the free market is somehow "magical" and that it always "self-corrects" is a point of view that comes from being intoxicated by a particular ideology and it's trappings. I don't think it's realistic.
Maybe they do, but it seems to me that political corrections, if they happen at all, normally take years to accomplish.TheEditor wrote: I also know that corrections in the market can not only take years ...
You'll have to elaborate for me to know exactly the case you are referring to here. I think you are referring to a case of fraud. I hold the opinion that engaging in fraud is unethical and unchristian. I think all capitalists would say the same.TheEditor wrote: Meanwhile, the gamers in that system saw the handwriting on the wall, liquidated their assets, paid off their buddies and headed for the Cayman Islands. Ethical? Christian? Don't think so.
I stated earlier that I'm not a supporter Ayn Rand. If I've made an error in using her rhetoric please point it out.TheEditor wrote: But I have heard (and this is where I get nauseated) Christians try to defend such actions using the same rhetoric that Ayn Rand used, which is why I target her specifically.
It is begging the question to suppose the government is, on agregate, providing benefits to be enjoyed. The Austrian economic ideas are based on a process logical deduction (see praxeology). If indeed that logical process is flaws, then it is falsified.TheEditor wrote: The irony of all of this is that the main proponents of these various theories, enjoy all of the benefits of the governments they decry; make profits capitalizing on the frustrations of their tax-burdened readers/fans and have the luxury of knowing their theories will never be completely realized, hence, unable to be falsified.
No. Hayek's argument about the "Pretense of Knowledge" comes to mind. The same criticism applies equally well to any system - even the current one. Our present rulers are human beings with very finite knowledge, who are simply unable to manage an economy and think through all implications of their ongoing decisions.TheEditor wrote: Have all of the implications of this economic theory, if put into actual practice, been thought out? The mind could only imagine...
This would be one implication I have not thought about until you raised the topic. What advantages did you have in mind? I'm thinking that real estate and ability to support one or more full time employees is a burden on small churchs. For sizes beyond a few hundred people this shouldn't really matter. Advertising a name brand would potentially help a larger organization. How would you see these factors being different under other economic systems?TheEditor wrote: I also wonder how the "Church" would fit into such a matrix? For example, (by church I mean the institutional church, ie Roman Catholicism, etc.) a large Church would have a built-in advantage over small partnerships, guilds, etc. due to the sheer size of them.
This is an interesting question that I haven't yet given much thought to. It strikes me as an insufficiently defined question because one can read into it, or not, whether there is some wrongdoing involved (e.g. presence or absence of abuse by old or new parents, etc,.) and what other motivations may or may not be present. I think other circumstances have to be relevant, and primary in judging the matter, and I could see law going either way on this point in an ancap system. This leads me to ask: how would you rank these in order of offensiveness? To simply give children away (e.g. price = $0.00)? To pay to send them away ( price < 0 )? or to receive money to send them away ( price > 0 )? My own is priceless to me, and would not be given up. I can't think of a situation that would necessitate giving my own up parental rights.TheEditor wrote: I have heard Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that they have the right to sell their children.
I have not read about this, but have made note of it and will look into it sometime.TheEditor wrote: By the way, what do you think of Distributism?