The government owns your property

[_JS]

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'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.

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.

So those who see all the benefits of a classless, publicly-owned society, would cause violence against the people? Interesting. 

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.

I think they very much go together. 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. You can take the good with the bad. There are some positives from it and some negatives. It is certainly a society with much more conspicuous consumption and a far greater gap between the wealthy and the poor.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting, indeed.

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.

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.

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]

The difference is that you speak of capitalism in some idealistic, utopian tone. I'm speaking of capitalism in the here and now. 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).

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

So those who see all the benefits of a classless, publicly-owned society, would cause violence against the people? Interesting. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[Universe Prince]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "security concerns?"

Concerns about security. I'm questioning that concerns about security, concerns about attacks from ill-meaning entities, are going to be eliminated by socialism. Maybe if some utopian world-wide socialism were to be in place, I could see your point. Is that what you're arguing?

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.

I'll try to explain. The people, or at least a lot of the people, feel that something should be done to provide security from possible threats, for example terrorists, and so they want to tap phones, search houses, whatever to prevent harm. Everyone owns the houses, so there is nothing to stops them from warrantless wiretapping et cetera. So how is privacy better protected? Or is socialism somehow going to magically eliminate all threats of violence?

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.

So... people are not going to care about threats of violence? The violence will all go away because of socialism? How does this work?

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.

So those who see all the benefits of a classless, publicly-owned society, would cause violence against the people? Interesting. 

Uh, no, that is not what I said. I'm not even sure how you got there from what I said.

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.

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.

As you know, I personally don't believe in any innate rights (i.e. self evident).

Which makes all the more strange your assertion that a right to privacy will still exist in a socialist society.

Certainly the "right to property" is not innate nor self-evident. I don't see how this is a spiritual belief at all.

Does the individual exist? Is there such a thing as free will? Are these questions related to spiritual belief?

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.

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?

The difference is that you speak of capitalism in some idealistic, utopian tone.

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.

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).

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

You, like JS, seem to have missed my point entirely.

[_JS]

So... people are not going to care about threats of violence? The violence will all go away because of socialism? How does this work?

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.

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.

Not at all. This is about practical reality. Philosophers influence on day to day lives is very small. It isn't what their philosophies were all about. That's meaningless. I'll grant you that Rand and prive property is oversimplified. There is a long string of philosophers who influenced that line of thinking and if I'm honest, from a practical viewpoint, Thatcher probably had more to do with modern private ownership than Rand, Locke, or Adam Smith combined. But the formula works. Modern society, at least western democratic society is built upon materialism, which you must admit does not exist without private ownership and capitalism. Crass consumerism is just a function of those three. "You are what you own."

Which makes all the more strange your assertion that a right to privacy will still exist in a socialist society.

That shouldn't be puzzling at all. I said "innate" or "self-evident" rights. 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.

Does the individual exist? Is there such a thing as free will? Are these questions related to spiritual belief?

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.

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?

How can self-ownership be innate if it is transferrable? How does one disown oneself? Aren't you creating a mind-body philosophical paradox?

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.

Of course you do. You say that "Capitalism = voluntary exchange of a good or service." It is either idealistic or Polyanna capitalism. I'm not trying to be an ass as you know that I respect you. Yet, in the real world it doesn't work that way at all. 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?

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

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.

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.

And you're saying I am speaking in an idealistic, utopian tone?

Modern society, at least western democratic society is built upon materialism,

Again, I think you're severely oversimplifying.

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.

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.

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.

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?

How can self-ownership be innate if it is transferrable? How does one disown oneself? Aren't you creating a mind-body philosophical paradox?

I'm not arguing necessarily that self-ownership is transferable, but I might argue that self-ownership allows for one to choose servitude to another.

You say that "Capitalism = voluntary exchange of a good or service."

Close enough for now.

It is either idealistic or Polyanna capitalism.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

[_JS]

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.

As I said, East Germany was by no means a perfect example. It was not a socialist country in that class still existed and the proletariat did not form the power structures that ran the nation. Instead, it adopted the Stalinist model, which was for all practical purposes, a police state. 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. If you look at real world data, you'll note that other nations with large cities do just fine with their violent crime rate. Many of those nations have much stricter weapons laws. Walk through Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, or Oslo at 2 AM any day of the week. Now do the same in Washington DC or Detroit or Memphis. The bottom line is that one should not have to carry a .45 to feel safe any more than they should have to have a police state.

Once class conflict is removed, once people have housing, jobs, education, a future that isn't hopeless, then there won't be violent crime. Tee and I disagree because he believes in Leninism, which calls for the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." I think Luxemburg was proven right, that such structures only lead to more class conflict.

And you're saying I am speaking in an idealistic, utopian tone?

Yes. I never said that I was not. The difference is that Marx has historical materialism (that's different type of materialism) and the dialectic. 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. Libertarianism's problem has never been that it is not grounded in the practical. Its problem is twofold:

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?[/quote]

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.

Semantics.

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

I don't mind discussing this with you, but not if you're going to be a complete twat.

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.

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[_JS]

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.

Wow. A priest molester shot. Nice. There's nothing like the Christian brotherhood of my Protestant brethren to brighten up the day.

The people who know this are called historians, archaeologists, and all of the documents we have dating all the way back to the 1st century. If you'd read about the early Christians of Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome you'd be really amazed at the community level at which they lived and worked. As a persecuted community in much of those areas, they relied heavily on one another for survival. There are some really amazing deep caves in a few communities of Asia Minor and Greece and of course the Catacombs of Rome that are true testaments to the hard work these communities undertook as well as the persecution they faced.

If you want Biblical evidence of their communal life, I'd suggest reading the letter of Paul, Peter, and John which are all written to Church communities generally with instructions (as is James to a degree). Also, you will find evidence of the communal life of the Apostles in Acts.

So we have the inspired Word of God, historians, archaeologists, primary evidence of both Christians and non-Christians. For the latter we have Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Clement as just two examples. A number of Roman and Greek writers. The Didache is an excellent example of an early Christian instruction on the Eucharist.

So, we've got God, historians, archaeologists, primary evidence, secondary evidence. I think that covers it well.

You have John Calvin and well...you and sola scriptura.

Most of the great work in the world is done by individuals, not by the church itself.

And this is precisely what I mean. A statement such as this would never have existed for the first 1700 years of the Church. Individualist Christianity is a modern concept. Look at what is wrong with your statement if you are a Christian.

Try this in comparison:

"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 God."

See the difference? This is what individualism has done to Christianity and society.

Who can prove their weren't millions of so called "Christians" that followed their version of Christianity

That's easy. There were some who did. They were called heretics. They never numbered in the millions, except perhaps the Arians who came very close to becoming the dominant form of Christianity at one point. This is history CU4, it is well-documented. You act as though this took place in the Stone Age and no one was around to record anything. Most heresies came back under the fold of the Church until the Protestants. One avenue of Protestantism was individualism and what a great society that has built <sarcasm>.

[Christians4LessGvt]

js: i'll respond it pieces, as I am busy at work

Wow. A priest molester shot.  Nice.

No it is not nice at all.
In fact I would gladly volunteer to take "the shot" at these monsters.
If found guilty they should be executed.
They are disgrace and hurt millions of people.
No tolerance.
Some of the Catholic Church has acted disgraceful in the handling of this disgraceful matter.
I am ashamed of them and their actions.

There's nothing like the Christian brotherhood of my Protestant brethren to brighten up the day.

JS honestly it was not meant as an insult to you.
I am "part Catholic".
It hurts me what these men did.
It is in no way an inditement of you.
You are not the disgrace.
So called "men of the church" are the disgrace.
Not only the monsters themselves, but some of the hierarchy as well.


And anyway I refuse to be pigeon-holed.
I am Catholic - I am Protestant - I fit no pigeonholes created again by men.


The people who know this are called historians, archaeologists, and all of the documents we have dating all the way back to the 1st century.

Yes and can we agree that the historians, ect rarely agree even among themselves.

If you'd read about the early Christians of Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome you'd be really amazed at the community level at which they lived and worked. As a persecuted community in much of those areas, they relied heavily on one another for survival. There are some really amazing deep caves in a few communities of Asia Minor and Greece and of course the Catacombs of Rome that are true testaments to the hard work these communities undertook as well as the persecution they faced.

That is interesting JS, but the individuals practicing would be off the radar of most of the historians.
Just like me. I am off the radar. As were, as are millions then and now.

If you want Biblical evidence of their communal life, I'd suggest reading the letter of Paul, Peter, and John which are all written to Church communities generally with instructions (as is James to a degree). Also, you will find evidence of the communal life of the Apostles in Acts.

I am not denying there was communal life, but think there were/are millions "off the radar".
And I will try to read these.
Thanks.

So we have the inspired Word of God, historians, archaeologists, primary evidence of both Christians and non-Christians. For the latter we have Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Clement as just two examples. A number of Roman and Greek writers. The Didache is an excellent example of an early Christian instruction on the Eucharist.So, we've got God, historians, archaeologists, primary evidence, secondary evidence. I think that covers it well. You have John Calvin and well...you and sola scriptura

see above

[Christians4LessGvt]

That's easy. There were some who did. They were called heretics. They never numbered in the millions, except perhaps the Arians who came very close to becoming the dominant form of Christianity at one point. This is history CU4, it is well-documented. You act as though this took place in the Stone Age and no one was around to record anything. Most heresies came back under the fold of the Church until the Protestants. One avenue of Protestantism was individualism and what a great society that has built <sarcasm>.

Honestly JS I disagree.
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.

[_JS]

I noticed that you did not respond to perhaps the most damning piece of evidence from your original argument and the reason that Individualist Christianity is a problem. It has contorted a sentence like: "Most of the great work in the world is done by God" into the one you wrote: "Most of the great work in the world is done by individuals, not by the church itself."

When I say Individualist Christianity, I mean the notion that the individual man (or woman) is supreme. You are mixing definitions into one that says people shouldn't practice private devotion to God. I never said that (nor would I ever suggest that). Public worship and private devotion are both very important aspects to the Christian faith (and notably to many other faiths as well).

The truth is that Individualist Christianity, in both its right and left theological forms, is very modern and primarily stems from strains of Protestantism. If you understand the history of intellectual movements and religious movements, then it is not that difficult to grasp this concept. I don't believe it is that difficult for you either. A large movement would have been one like Arianism, gnosticism, Manichaeism, or even Catharism. It would have been noteworthy. Protestantism is another example (and divides into its own separate movements), but the "millions of people" you're describing does not exist. If it does then show me the evidence.

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.

It isn't a matter of knowing about you, personally. That misses the point entirely. Most people are not recorded in history. That refutes nothing I've said.

This is about how the individual became supreme in Christianity. Your sentence is a good example and I know you did not write it in a malign manner, but notice that you put individual men before God (to whom Christians owe all glory). We've become people who glorify accumulation of wealth, owning massive homes and vehicles that serve no purpose beyond status. We glorify status. We (and I use this as a term for all Christians) have fallen in love with what an individual can do. We tell them that they simply say a word or two and they are saved forevermore (omnce saved, always saved theology). We teach them that Christ defends their "rights" to own more, make more money just as long as they toss a little back to the church. It is all about me, I, myself.

Bullshit.

The Old Testament, the New Testament, Christ Himself, and the Early Church all speak of community and society. We and Us. Christ loved us. God gave us the fruits of creation. Please give us your daily bread...forgive us our trespasses. Please pray for us sinners...

[Christians4LessGvt]

"I noticed that you did not respond to perhaps the most damning piece of
evidence from your original argument and the reason that Individualist Christianity is a problem"

I thought I did, but will try again.

"It has contorted a sentence like: "Most of the great work in the world is done by God" into the one you wrote: "Most of the great work in the world is done by individuals, not by the church itself."

Well JS I thought one aspect we were discussing  was church communal vs individual.

I mean is it not just semantics again? (i thought we promised not to do that?  )
Let me explain.

Most great works are done by God via a church/community
vs.
Most great works are done by God via an individual

And btw I am not saying individualist Christianity is for anyone else
If you prefer another way
I cheer loudly that you have found "your way".
I don't pretend my way is superior to yours in any way
I do think there have been millions of Catholics/Christians throughout history that
prefer my way, but this isn't a contest.

[Universe Prince]

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.

I guess I can see that point even if I don't agree with it.

The right-wing notion of arming every citizen is quaint and frankly, superficial.

I don't recall saying anything about arming every citizen.

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.

I can see that too.

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?"

That would be a problem with libertarians, not libertarianism. And believe me, I am well aware of it.

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?

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".

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.

Semantics.

Possibly, but no less true.

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?

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.

In Jesus commandment to love thy neighbor, who was your neighbor?

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.

Who followed Jesus?

Individuals.

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?

How about small communities of individuals? Individuals and community are not mutually exclusive. Community is made up of individuals.

This Christian Individualism, which never existed for the first 1700 years of Christianity, is a myth. Christianity is a societal and community faith.

Christianity is, as I understand it, an intensely personal faith, involving a relationship between the individual and God. This is not to say there is not also a relationship with other people believes and nonbelievers, because there is. And I think the notion that Christianity is about what community one belongs too is something that Jesus argued against and that his disciples had to argue against, Colossians 3:11 for example. The Epistles say Abraham believed and "it was accounted to him for righteousness." John 3 speaks of the need for the individual be born again of the spirit. What I see points to Christianity being as much about an individual relationship with faith and with God as it is about the relationship of the individual to those around him. So while there may not be a Christian Individualism as you may see it, I don't believe Christianity is about making us all merely cells of a collective either.

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'm not saying your experience is invalid, but again, mine is different.

I don't mind discussing this with you, but not if you're going to be a complete twat.

Uh, okay. I'm highly skeptical of the results you claim for capitalism and socialism. I don't see a company having rules about how one's work is performed as alienating people from their work and from one another. You say it does, but rules about PowerPoint templates or approaches to problem solving hardly puts barriers between a person and his fellow man. At least, I can't see how it does. Please, explain to me how these sorts of regulations alienate people one from another.

And since you claim socialism does away with these regulations, I don't see anything unreasonable about asking if there are any examples of this. Show me that it works. Come on, persuade me. Show me I'm wrong and that your way is better.

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.

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.

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?

[_JS]

That would be a problem with libertarians, not libertarianism. And believe me, I am well aware of it.

That's a fair point and I don't know enough of the inner politics to understand 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".

We certainly agree on the War on Drugs. I see a lot of the same with socialism and modern policy. I've pointed such out with Denmark as an example.

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.

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?   

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.

Of course you are an individual. I'm not proposing that we become Borg 

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.

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?

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.