| Civil forfeiture can apply to virtually any property: cars, houses, boats and, as the Rickses' case demonstrates, even money. The property can be seized merely on suspicion that it was used in connection with a crime or resulted from criminal activity. [...] While criminal forfeiture requires that a property owner be found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, civil forfeiture does not require that the owner even be accused of a crime, much less convicted. The government proceeds directly against the property it wants to take, which means owners are not entitled to any of the protections they would receive if they were accused of a crime. [...] The FBI's adoption of the Lima police's forfeiture is not unusual - the federal government regularly seizes property that was originally confiscated by local authorities and then splits the resulting profits. In Missouri, for example, authorities were recently caught turning forfeitures over to the federal government in order to avoid a legal requirement that proceeds go to schools. The abuses don't stop there. In the 1990s, police in Louisiana were stealing innocent people's property by fabricating drug crimes. They used the proceeds for ski trips to Aspen. |
And it is not to be blamed on 'Liberals'. either.
And it is not to be blamed on 'Liberals'. either.
If everything were owned in common this would not be an issue. ;)
If everything were owned in common this would not be an issue. ;)
No; there would be different issues. Like when someone else decides that they want the house I'm living in for some other reason.
Not at all. The right to privacy would still exist. Why is ownership and materialism so important? I'm asking sincerely.
Not at all. The right to privacy would still exist. Why is ownership and materialism so important? I'm asking sincerely.
How does privacy exist when my house is "owned by everyone"?
Common ownership doesn't mean that there would be a lack of law. Everyone would have housing and where reasonable expectation of privacy is protected by law, it would be enforced.
Now answer my question, please?
Common ownership doesn't mean that there would be a lack of law. Everyone would have housing and where reasonable expectation of privacy is protected by law, it would be enforced.
And, under this law of "common ownership" who gets to decide where I'll live and how long I'll live there?Now answer my question, please?
I don't see much of a difference between "everyone owns everything" and "the government owns everything" - either way, someone else can decide to put me out of my house whenever they feel like it, and I don't have a say in the matter.
Why would anyone put you out of your house under common ownership?
You still have not answered my question. Why is ownership and materialism so important?
Why would anyone put you out of your house under common ownership?
Because that piece of land is needed for something else which others have decided is more important than the use I'm putting it to - same as now. It's just that now, the decision is based on who can pay more taxes to the local government. Under your model, the decision is based on who can convince more people they are justified.You still have not answered my question. Why is ownership and materialism so important?
Sure I have.
"I don't see much of a difference between "everyone owns everything" and "the government owns everything" - either way, someone else can decide to put me out of my house whenever they feel like it, and I don't have a say in the matter."
I suppose it is possible under certain circumstances. An example might be that the building you live in is not deemed livable. It would be up to the particular collective to determine what provisions are made, but housing would be available to all and without cost. Therefore, any need caused by displacement would be immediately met.
So ownership and materialism are only important for the negative reaction of loss of ownership or loss of material wealth? That is a cyclical argument and not at all logical. Yet, if that is all there is to it (and clearly it cannot be all there is) then overcoming crass consumerism should be a simple task.
I suppose it is possible under certain circumstances. An example might be that the building you live in is not deemed livable. It would be up to the particular collective to determine what provisions are made, but housing would be available to all and without cost. Therefore, any need caused by displacement would be immediately met.
Another example might be someone with lots of friends likes the view from my house, and rallies those friends to get me kicked out of my home so he can live there.So ownership and materialism are only important for the negative reaction of loss of ownership or loss of material wealth? That is a cyclical argument and not at all logical. Yet, if that is all there is to it (and clearly it cannot be all there is) then overcoming crass consumerism should be a simple task.
Loss of ownership may mean loss of life in many circumstances. It's not cyclical, unless you consider that an entire life is cyclical. "Does it really matter if you die tomorrow or twenty years from now? You still die, so it's illogical to preserve your life."
After all, ownership of property is tied to ownership of yourself. If you can't own anything outside of yourself, can you really own yourself?
Obviously the law would protect against your first argument. You've again ignored the notion that common ownership does not mean a lawless society.
Your second argument is a common one and most notably preached by Maggie Thatcher herself. It is of course blatantly false. The ownership of a material posession is not intrinsically tied to the rather bizarre notion of "owning" oneself. The fact that you can own a 2008 Mercedes SUV or a 1963 Opel Cadet has absolutely no bearing on your existence as a human being. This is logic bent in the worst way.
So, this hypothetical law would say that my decision to live in a certain house would trump the decision that my house and land could be put to better use? Then what is the difference in that from private ownership?
Sure it does. If I can't own property - everything is to be used for the "common good" - then why would I have ownership of my body? Wouldn't my labors also of necessity be for the "common good"? If I am given free housing and all the food and clothing that I need, I can just go out and do anything I please? Whether or not it contributes to society? If my house needs maintenance, I wait for someone to just "feel like" coming by to make repairs?
No. It would prevent the situation you described before where an individual was simply using the tyranny of the majority to make selfish personal gains. And it would not be "my" house either.
As always the argument quickly jumps from life to labour. I don't mean that as an insult, but I've never had this discussion where the issue of life itself isn't the first topic to be brought up, but then never really discussed again. It always goes to labour, which I find interesting.
Then perhaps you can explain how this would be setup so that no one could possibly use the system for selfish gain.
OK. Then perhaps you'll have to explain what a person's life is beyond the sum of their personal works.
Really? An individual is simply the sum of their labour? That's all?
Really? An individual is simply the sum of their labour? That's all?
What else is it?
But if you wish to avoid the celestial, what about family, friendships, service to one's fellow man, love (and we can break that down to the four different words the Greeks had for "love"), learning, exploration, philosophy, existence, marriage, hope, trust, reason, intellect...
If everything were owned in common this would not be an issue. ;)
The right to privacy would still exist.
Why is ownership and materialism so important? I'm asking sincerely.
Really? An individual is simply the sum of their labour? That's all? Is that a libertarian premise?
But if you wish to avoid the celestial, what about family, friendships, service to one's fellow man, love (and we can break that down to the four different words the Greeks had for "love"), learning, exploration, philosophy, existence, marriage, hope, trust, reason, intellect...
All of those are various forms of labor...
Even sitting still and thinking burns calories, after all...
You're mixing definitions. The physics of work and labour are two separate notions.
Heh. Yes, instead of the government confiscating for its own purpose what belongs to individuals, the government would be confiscating for its own purpose what belongs to everyone and therefore basically no one, and the government would still get away with it. If anything changed in effect, it would probably be a patriotic defense of this type of seizure as for the greater good.
Would it? You say there would still be laws, but how can one claim privacy in one's dwelling if one's house is not privately owned? If the people own everything, and the government is/represents the people, then the government will be free to do with house it so pleases, will it not?
I'm sure you did ask sincerely, however, you also attempted to mix materialism in with ownership. Materialism is a preoccupation with physical goods as value to a degree that dismisses interest in other values such as cultural, intellectual or spiritual. One does not have to be, and were I a betting man I'd bet most are not, materialistic to defend the concept of property. So let's leave materialism aside since no one, as best I can tell, is interested in defending it.
Ownership, property is important because in the sense of natural rights it is the right that is the foundation for all other rights. You can call self-ownership "bizarre", but it is not. You said, "The fact that you can own a 2008 Mercedes SUV or a 1963 Opel Cadet has absolutely no bearing on your existence as a human being. This is logic bent in the worst way." Yes, and you bent it. The argument is not that owning a car has a bearing on one's existence as a human being. The argument is that existence as a human being has bearing on one's right to own property.
You can argue whether or not an individual actually owns himself, particularly from a Christian theological standpoint, however, I think the concept of self-ownership (or perhaps self-regency if you prefer, Catholic), is fundamental to human society. If each individual owns himself, then no one else can own him. No one's interests or desires can be claimed to be above that of any other human. Without this, seems to me, then we lose basis for opposition to slavery, murder and abuse of other human beings, because then anything society claims to be more important than the individual becomes a basis for enslavement, murder and abuse. This is, in (extreme) brief, why the right of property is important.
What we do is always a measure, at least in part, of who we are. Human action is not always labor in the form of a job. But when a man works, possibly sacrifices, to provide for his family, this says something about him, does it not? If a person is a good person, we judge this by their actions, do we not? And if individuals own themselves, they also then own their labor and their time. If a person devotes himself to spiritual endeavors, a priest, a nun, a pastor, this is human action by choice. Their actions, effort, labor is their own to give, is it not? Also, "An individual is simply the sum of their labour" is not quite what Amianthus initially said. He said, "Then perhaps you'll have to explain what a person's life is beyond the sum of their personal works." Suggesting that a person's life is the sum of his personal works is not really the same as suggesting an individual is simply the sum of his labor. An individual may be quite spiritual, but his life is made up of actions nonetheless. I doubt you deny this. Do you?
If everything were owned in common this would not be an issue. ;)
No; there would be different issues. Like when someone else decides that they want the house I'm living in for some other reason.
Not at all. The right to privacy would still exist. Why is ownership and materialism so important? I'm asking sincerely.
I don't recall mentioning any government. ;)
Simply having common ownership does not suddenly remove all legal boundaries. [...] The right to privacy would still exist and in fact, I'd argue that because socialism is more directly democratic and concerned with the needs of the people - privacy would be far more important a right than it is in the current capitalist states that exist right now where wiretaps and domestic spying are defended through the ideology of the bourgeoisie.
One would think that monasteries and convents must be horrible places of violent chaos and constant intrusion upon any possible privacy. Of course that isn't the case and is not a necessity on any communal society.
Materialism: in this case I refer to economic materialism which is the placing of the collection or consumption of material goods as a high priority. [...] I admit that later I might have referred to it in a negative manner, but my initial question is meant to view both it and ownership as neutral.
And it is important in modern economics. Look at calls from economists and people in different parties on the consumers to spend money on material items (in theory as a method of increasing spending on consumer items and therefore driving the economy).
I realize that you think the concept of self-ownership is fundamental to human society and therefore to your concept of private ownership, yet that does not make it true either from a practical standpoint or from an ideological standpoint.
If self-ownership is merely a right (if natural rights truly exist is a debatable issue of its own) then is it not transferable? Can one not simply transfer their self-ownership to another actor?
That action alone would defeat the entire concept of self-onwership and take private ownership (if it truly depends upon self-ownership) right along with it.
The thing is of course that capitalist labour is a paradox: it takes something that is intimately valuable to us, our personal determined activity, and then monetises and regulates it, dividing us from our work and from our fellow workers in the race to monetise our labour and regulate each other. It?s called alienation.
I'm not convinced that security concerns disappear so in a socialist society. And I repeat: If the people own everything, and the government is/represents the people, then the government will be free to do with the house as it so pleases, will it not? Being concerned with the needs of the people sounds real nice, but if the people decide their need is for security and that such need is more important than some individual's desire for privacy, what constraints can there be to check the people/government if there is no notion of private ownership? As the saying goes, a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.
I have no idea why I would think that people who choose to voluntarily live in communities where there is communal ownership would be exercise violent chaos and constant intrusions upon privacy. Government, on the other hand, is not run by priests or nuns or anyone else strictly constrained to high levels of ethics and morals. If only saints and angels made up the government, I could perhaps agree with you, but that isn't the reality of the situation.
Okay, but in my understanding materialism is necessarily negative. And I'd say that materialism and ownership are not the same thing, and I think you're unfairly trying to link them together. That is a theory with which I do not agree. Yes, it does seem to be pushed a lot these days, but I think that is harmful. And again, ownership/property does not require materialism.
Well, let me put it this way, I believe it to be true from a spiritual standpoint, and from an intellectual standpoint I find it to be essential. If human beings have rights at all, they have them because of self-ownership (or at least self-regency). Without self-ownership, rights as such do not exist, and we are left with only privileges. That can certainly be argued, but I don't agree with it.
Possibly. Can a person choose to be a slave? I have a lot of moral problems with that concept, but to put this plainly, I'd have to argue that yes an individual could choose that. Is that really a transfer of self-ownership? I don't know, but maybe it is. A person could write a book, I'm sure, and lengthy one examining that one aspect of the concept of self-ownership.
I don't agree. But again, this is not something to be addressed briefly or something that can be explained in a few sentences. Which is possibly another way of saying, let me think about this one for a while and maybe I'll be able to better explain my reasoning.
I don't see the paradox. Labor is owned by the individual, in this theory anyway, and is therefore property to be traded. How this makes anything a race, I don't know. If the labor is not owned by the individual, then how does that make one more connected to others? How does that protect us from the desire to regulate, which is the desire to control others? Seems to me, if labor is not owned by the individual then that leaves us more vulnerable to the desire to regulate, not less. But in any case, capitalist labor does not take something from us. Capitalism is a matter of voluntary exchange. Businesses, legitimate ones anyway, don't use conscription. Any that do would be engaging in slavery, not capitalism. Are there socialist countries that are free of regulations and controls on human behavior? I would be extremely surprised if there were. Anyway, voluntary exchange does not alienate us from each other. It makes us all more interdependent. It contributes to the cohesiveness of society.[/color]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "security concerns?"
Your point about the people's needs for security requiring the abrogation of the house one is living in is a scenario that I simply cannot fathom.
The disconnect lies in the fact that a socialist society has no class distinction. The conflicts that require the "security concerns" of which you speak are conflicts created (or in some cases fabricated) from a world under bourgeoisie power structures. These conflicts are absolutely vital for the bourgeoisie to retain control. Thus "security concerns," whether legitimate or not, are unnecessary in a socialist and classless society.
QuoteI have no idea why I would think that people who choose to voluntarily live in communities where there is communal ownership would be exercise violent chaos and constant intrusions upon privacy. Government, on the other hand, is not run by priests or nuns or anyone else strictly constrained to high levels of ethics and morals. If only saints and angels made up the government, I could perhaps agree with you, but that isn't the reality of the situation.
So those who see all the benefits of a classless, publicly-owned society, would cause violence against the people? Interesting. ;)
In fact, (individualism + materialism + private ownership) = (Nietzschean + Randian + Austrian School) formula for modern society. The individualism comes from Nietzsche, the private ownership from Rand, and the materialism from the Austrian School (and more modern - from Friedman). This is modern capitalist society in a very nice mathematical formula.
As you know, I personally don't believe in any innate rights (i.e. self evident).
Certainly the "right to property" is not innate nor self-evident. I don't see how this is a spiritual belief at all.
No problem. As you said, to put it very succinctly - how can one own oneself if they can transfer the ownership of oneself? It seems an oxymoron.
The difference is that you speak of capitalism in some idealistic, utopian tone.
Businesses most certainly do regulate one's work and tend to have a strong desire to do so. I have noticed this more in the private sector than in the public (to my surprise).
Such societies have been established in many places: The New Harmony, Indiana community, the Amana colonies, Shaker communities across the US, and of course, Israeli kibbutzim. I don;t think any resulted in violence.
So... people are not going to care about threats of violence? The violence will all go away because of socialism? How does this work?
If Nietzsche was the beginning and end of thought on individualism, and if private property was an idea that began with Rand, and if the Austrian School of economics was all about materialism, it might work. But none of those is actually true. I think that at best you've severely oversimplified.
Which makes all the more strange your assertion that a right to privacy will still exist in a socialist society.
Does the individual exist? Is there such a thing as free will? Are these questions related to spiritual belief?
I see nothing oxymoronic about it. If a person can claim self-ownership, a person can also choose to submit his ownership, in effect at the very least, to someone else. What is contradictory about that?
I do? Either a person owns his labor or he does not. Either a person has ground to make private agreement to exchange his labor for something else, or he does not. What is idealistic or utopian about this? This is the state of how things are, seems to me. Putting something in basic terms is not the same as being idealistic or utopian.
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by regulating one's work. Seems to me there are an awful lot of government regulations on work in the private sector. I'm not saying there are not any regulations imposed by companies, but I think you need to be more clear about what sort of regulations you're talking about.
I just explained it. Note that I did not say "violence" will go away, I specifically was speaking of "security concerns." Modern capitalist states have more violence than any place on Earth. There were many things wrong with East Germany, I will concede that for certain, but street violence, assault, rape, homicide, burglary, even homelesness were foreign concepts to East Berliners (and East Germans in general). Now these things are much more common in Berlin or Moscow, yet still not near as common as they are in Washington DC, Detroit, or even NYC.
You remove homeslesness, unemployment, poor education, hopelesness, and provide those who did not have any opportunities with a future as socialism will, then crime will become a rarity and violent crime a bizarre oddity.
Modern society, at least western democratic society is built upon materialism,
From a practical standpoint rights can most certainly exist and on the other hand they can most certainly be taken away. It is done all the time. There's no conflict there.
Existence is not spiritual, Descartes' cogito proved that. Plenty of atheists believe in free will. In fact, anyone who believes in God, or at least the God of Christianity, Judaism, & Islam, must believe in some form of conditional free will. We can have that theological discussion if you like.
How can self-ownership be innate if it is transferrable? How does one disown oneself? Aren't you creating a mind-body philosophical paradox?
You say that "Capitalism = voluntary exchange of a good or service."
It is either idealistic or Polyanna capitalism.
You can blame who you like for the problems (you tend to blame the governments), but it doesn't reflect reality. When X doesn't reflect reality, then X becomes idealism or naivete. As an example, I work for a healthcare company. Our revenue comes from either the Government (Medicare, Medicaid) or private health insurance companies. The policy of the insurance companies is that they never pay on the first claim filed. It is always rejected. Care to guess who pays faster?
For example, you get handed a project and told what the company is trying to discover. Perhaps a process is failing and they need to know why. Do you have free reign to complete this project in the manner you see as best? (given time constraints of course) Or are you being told what PowerPoint templates the company uses? What different approaches to this issue the company demands you take? How much regulating of your work does the private business do? Remember, who owns that labor? You do.
There is so much there to argue about, I'm not sure where to begin. If I come at this purely from my perspective about sources of violence in our society, I'm left wondering if you think drug prohibition and excessive gun regulations/bans are a product of capitalism. You say "street violence, assault, rape, homicide, burglary, even homelesness were foreign concepts to East Berliners" but I'm not sure how this goes your initial point of protection of privacy because greater protection of privacy was certainly not the case in East Germany. Yeah, if we became more of a police state, we probably could get rid of a lot of assault, rape, homicide and burglary. But then this seems to go more to my questioning of your position than it does to your position. What about a socialist society will protect privacy? And what does any of your comment up there have to do with the end of security concerns. How does socialism prevent invasions of privacy in the name of security? How does socialism do away with the "war on drugs" and foreign threats, et cetera. Frankly, when I talk to the other major socialist here (or who used to be here), Michael Tee, I was assured that "enemies of the people" were to be rooted out at all costs. I know you seem to advocate a different sort of socialism, but I'm still left with the impression that socialism isn't going to be any better at protecting people from privacy intrusions than gun bans are at protecting people from getting robbed.
And you're saying I am speaking in an idealistic, utopian tone?
I don't agree. Liberty can be taken away, not rights. If we're going to say rights can be given and taken away, they cease to be rights and become merely privileges.
Let me put this another way, did God create humans as individual entities responsible for our own actions and decisions, or are we cells of a corporate entity with responsibility resting with the corporate entity?
Why? In what way is that not a realistic description of capitalism? I have property and you have property. We agree to an exchange of property with the intent to gain something we want. I have labor; you have money. We agree to exchange work for money. What part of this is not reality? I'm simplifying, yes, but this is hardly a nonexistent ideal.
This has not been my experience with insurance companies, so I'm questioning your example as accurate. Off the top of my head I would counter that many doctors have started refusing Medicare/Medicaid payments because Medicare/Medicaid payments add to the cost of running a doctor's office and lock the doctors into charging everyone the same rather than charging what people can afford. So is the government program the problem or the solution there? Seems to me, it's the problem.
I own the labor, but I have agreed to exchange my labor for the company's money. Chances are real good that I also agreed to abide by the company rules as part of that exchange. At the same time, if I feel the company is unfair, I can look for work and eventually take a job with some other company. Or perhaps choose to work for myself. Why? Because I own my labor, not the company. I'm not sure how the company having a PowerPoint template is alienating me from my fellow man. Is socialism going to eliminate all aesthetic concepts, and if so, how is that going to unify humanity? More to the point, I'm not sure how rules laid down by the company for how it wants to see things done alienates me from my labor and my fellow human beings. Maybe if every business was run like a small church--people did things however they saw fit and everyone else always said "wow, what a fantastic job" no matter how crappy one's use of 125 different typefaces and lack of structure actually is--maybe the world would be a better place if that were the case, but I'm doubtful. And what you keep telling me about how bad capitalism is and how good socialism is seems unrealistic, idealized and utopian to the extreme. I don't see any basis for your rosy picture of the end of crime and suffering.
Also, I'm still wondering if there are socialist countries that don't have regulations regarding human behavior. Are there socialist countries or communities with no labor regulations?
There are other questions as well. If a person does not own himself, then how can he own his labor? If a person does not own his labor, if his labor is owned by the community, how does that prevent regulations on his labor and behavior?
Maybe if every business was run like a small church--people did things however they saw fit and everyone else always said "wow, what a fantastic job" no matter how crappy one's use of 125 different typefaces and lack of structure actually is--maybe the world would be a better place if that were the case, but I'm doubtful.
This Christian Individualism, which never existed for the first 1700 years of Christianity, is a myth.
Says who?
Some dude says again?
Some translater?
Some priest or preacher that may be molesting kids behind the curtain?
Simply men trying to be God.
In early times I would think just the opposite was true.
Before the industrial revolution when everybody moved to cities it was most likely
even more so an individual faith. (But still is today as well)
Who can prove their weren't millions of so called "Christians" that followed
their version of Christianity and lived "a life of Christ" on their own and only
passingly were part of a church community if at all.
Christianity is a societal and community faith.
But hardly relegated to only being a "community faith".
Most of the great work in the world is done by individuals, not by the church itself.
Most of the great work in the world is done by individuals, not by the church itself.
Who can prove their weren't millions of so called "Christians" that followed their version of Christianity
Some may call me a "heretic". (btw It would be a badge of honor for me)
But how would anyone know for instance about me?
I feel I live the "individual way" for the most part. (actually in some ways we all do) it's all a cafeteria
I am not "well documented".
No one has ever interviewed me.
I am "off the radar" of recorded history.
So how are the millions now and the millions before me with the same ideas "well documented".
No one really knows our numbers.
I think that class conflict is the major source of the violent crimes I mentioned in this country. That is easily seen when you look at the overwhelming disparity of African-Americans and Hispanics from poor backgrounds who make up the prison population compared to the population of the United States.
The right-wing notion of arming every citizen is quaint and frankly, superficial.
I can look at the world right now and see that there are enough resources and enough wealth to provide a decent standard of living to every person.
1. It gets lost in the weeds. At the end of the day, people don't care that much about having to put on their seatbelt. And you know what? It probably does save lives. Yet, I've witnessed libertarians make ferocious and lengthy arguments against it. It isn't that they don't have a point. It is that in the list of priority issues, seatbelts rank well behind "should I have the tuna melt or club for lunch today?"
2. It isn't bold. As above, y'all are scared of idealism. The practical capitalists are all sitting in Washington DC working for one of two parties. Why would they ever choose a libertarian?
QuoteI don't agree. Liberty can be taken away, not rights. If we're going to say rights can be given and taken away, they cease to be rights and become merely privileges.
Semantics.
In the story of Exodus, who did God save? Did he save a group of individuals, or a collective society? Who did Abraham lead, a ragtag group of individuals who elected to go, or a society told to go by God?
In Jesus commandment to love thy neighbor, who was your neighbor?
Who followed Jesus?
How did they live after Christ ascended? Did they live as individuals or in a collective society? How did the early church exist? As individuals or as small communities?
This Christian Individualism, which never existed for the first 1700 years of Christianity, is a myth. Christianity is a societal and community faith.
Prince, you aren't anything to the insurance company. It is the healthcare provider that has to recover the money from them. Unfortunately I'd like to keep my job or I'd show you our aging debits charts by pay class.
I don't mind discussing this with you, but not if you're going to be a complete twat.
QuoteMaybe if every business was run like a small church--people did things however they saw fit and everyone else always said "wow, what a fantastic job" no matter how crappy one's use of 125 different typefaces and lack of structure actually is--maybe the world would be a better place if that were the case, but I'm doubtful.
I've worked in both public and private sector, and one of the largest chemical companies in the world. I'll pass on this type of remark, thanks.
That would be a problem with libertarians, not libertarianism. And believe me, I am well aware of it.
No, not scared of idealism. Simply tired of being told the ideas are impractical and unworkable. To be quite honest, I think libertarianism is quite grounded in reality and is more pragmatic than the ideas usually put into practice. For example, the "war on drugs".
Does a society necessarily have to be a collective? I've said before that society is a group of individuals. More accurately, society is a group of groups of individuals. Abraham led members of his family "and the people whom they had acquired in Haran". And last time I checked Genesis, God didn't talk to a society when He said "Get out of your country...To a land I will show you." God said that to Abram. An individual.
Love your neighbor as yourself seems difficult without a sense of individuality. If one does not love himself, how can he then love others as himself. And indeed, what does Jesus story in response to "who is my neighbor" say? The members of society, the representatives of society, a priest and a Levite, crossed to the other side and an individual not of the correct society, an individual who acted with mercy was the neighbor.
I don't understand. Did I offend? You brought up PowerPoint templates. Seems to me like a comment about maybe corporate aesthetics or maybe corporate control of creativity. So I respond to that. You seem irritated by my reply. Why?
I think that here we are having a problem with definitions. Individualist Christianity, to me, puts the individual man (or woman) as supreme. It conflicts directly with God.
I earned this estate. I built this empire. I do whatI like.
Where is the glory to God? See what I mean?
Yet, if we lock ourselves away in our 5,000 square foot homes and continue to delve into crass consumerism and materialism (I'm not assigning blame, just saying that this is where society is) then what have we got? To me, that is the ramifications of individualism. I'm not decrying the fact that we're humans and have one mind, I think that is obvious. Yet, Christianity does not support what individualism has become.
Perhaps just a bad day, I'm not sure. I guess I wasn't in the mood for rampant sarcasm. We can discuss the Marxian concept of alienation if you like, but I can't do so right now.
I certainly see what you're saying, and to a certain degree I agree. But at the same time, I would not say that Christianity is a communal faith. It has a communal aspect, but it also has an individual relationship/individual responsibility aspect. There is the relationship of the individual with God, the relationship of the individual to other believers and the relationship of the individual to non-believers. I'm obviously simplifying here, but I would say these relationships are on equal footing, though the relationship with God is the primary one and it informs the other two. Which relates back to my original point about self-ownership (or self-regency if we accept that we belong to God) in that as human beings we have a personal responsibility, were are given authority to choose, and so the individual owns himself. Again, I'm simplifying, but I think you'll get my point even if you don't agree.
I might concede that such could be the ramifications of individualism, but I would also say that I don't believe that sort of isolationism is the nature of capitalism. Much that happens in the name of capitalism isn't always capitalism, just as much that happens in the name of socialism is not always socialism. (Or in the name of Christianity, et cetera.)
I do understand your point. I'd probably even agree with some form of self-regency if you really wanted to get into the weeds and discuss that specifically.
To be honest with you, I'd like to see a libertarian system employed. I think that it would remove many of the unnecessary structures that currently exist. Perhaps we could get to a point where we could be rid of extreme nationalism for example. It would also be nice to see a free flow of workers from anywhere and to anywhere hopefully without the ridiculous amount of obstacles we currently have.
One thing I'd like to hear more about is education, Prince. What would you expect from a libertarian education system (or lack of system)? I don't mean just here in the US, but in the third world as well. I ask because no matter what one thinks of say the Sandinistas, there was no doubt that they did raise the literacy rate very quickly in Nicaragua as did Castro in Cuba. The East Germans were one of the most educated populations in the world (that didn't mean that some of them wouldn't leave to the west to make lots of money!).
I guess that some people fear that a libertarian education might simply leave the poor out of luck and keep the wealthy in a constant circle of retaining high quality education.
I don't know about the Sandinistas, but that ain't the story I hear about Cuba. It had fairly high literacy rates before the revolution. Anyway, what a libertarian education system might look like depends on which libertarian you ask. If we start from the situation we have now, I think we'd see school vouchers and charter schools and less regulations about where a child has to attend school, most anything that gives parents more choice. If that were to be taken further, I think we'd see a more decentralized system of education. Contrary to popular opinion, libertarians are not out to prevent people helping the poor. Were I a betting man, I'd bet you'd find libertarians running a few schools to help the poor and lower income folks. Or maybe providing books for free. Even Mises.org, the internet heart of Austrian economics, has books online for free download.
Libertarians, for all their usual support of capitalism, have no interest in protecting a wealthy ruling class. They have no interest in economic or social class at all. Actually this is one reason for the support of capitalism, because it does not rest on a class structure, rather it leaves people free to pursue their own interests regardless of economic or social status. Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such, but a lot of that comes from the partnership of government and big business, which libertarians in point of fact oppose. A small example would be the legal requirement for cosmetology license to have a business that has to do with cutting and styling people's hair. This keeps people who would have a business that only braids hair, and nothing involving a need for chemicals, from being able to own/run such a business without the expense and time to get a license they don't actually need. Get rid of that requirement, and a barrier to people owning/running their own business is out of the way. You want to put power back in the hands of the proletariat, well, so do the libertarians.
Yes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such
On the contrary, much of these assumptions are not ones I have made about libertarians.
I'd qualify that by saying that there are libertarians who do subscribe to a level of Social Darwinism and the Ayn Rand thought that the poor are "parasites." Yet, I don't think they represent the majority any more than Stalinists represent the majority of socialists.
QuoteYes, yes, the wealthy do this and that, keeping the people down or some such
You seem to doubt the veracity of this? Perhaps I'm mistaken.
You might be surprised, but I actually see libertarians as having a somewhat similar goal to socialists. The difference is that the path to achieving the goal and that libertarians dismiss class and history. I find that we agree on quite a bit though, as surprising as that may be.
Well, let me put it this way: You and I seem to agree on a lot, but Michael Tee and I did not seem to agree on much of anything. I would not say that libertarians dismiss class and history. I think they don't care about class, in the sense that they think it can be made meaningless if the people are allowed liberty. And given how much I've seen of libertarians talking about history and the ramifications of historical events, like, say, off the top of my head, the New Deal or the Civil War, I don't know why you'd think they dismiss history.
It is interesting that we certainly agree that Fascism is wrong, that is the corporatism of government.
It is interesting that we certainly agree that Fascism is wrong, that is the corporatism of government.
And I think most libertarians do. But I'd say also, that from where I sit, the corporatism of government is supported in large part by the attempts of government to regulate business. The government turns to big corporations for aid in crafting legislation, and big corporations that are able to absorb the costs of conforming to regulations benefit by keeping out smaller competitors who cannot so easily absorb those costs. Thus creating a decidedly un-free marketplace. And that doesn't even get into the corporate bailouts and similar nonsense that seem to go on constantly. So when people talk about how horribly capitalism and/or the free market works, I usually scoff because that isn't really what's going on here.
I'd consider that pragmatic capitalism, or the reality of capitalism.
I'd probably even agree with some form of self-regency if you really wanted to get into the weeds and discuss that specifically.