Is Distributism utopian?

[meme1961]

Let’s not get mixed up between Absolute Marxism and anything that would be considered a form of “communism”. there’s nothing about the basic fundamental definition of communism that requires the system to espouse the religious views of Marx.

That is because the academic definition of communism is an incomplete abstraction. As such, it neither exists, nor can exist, and is thus irrelevant except in a purely academic discussion about such abstractions.

The miscommunication here lies in a false equivalence between the abstract, incomplete, academic definition of communism versus the reality of communism.

If someone proposed a system in which everyone in the nation owns every factory collectively, which explicitly recognized God, maybe to the point of forcing people to go to church (just as an example), we would still call it communism.

Yes, we would, because the only difference here would be in who and how “God” is defined. In such a society, you can bet your life that “God” would be a construct of, defined by, and controlled by the state. Case in point: Red China’s “Catholic Bishops”.

There is a reason for the First Amendment, as China is demonstrating.

Again. uch:

Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master, I beg you to tell me, will we never learn from our mistakes!?

 

[meme1961]

je333;8560249:

Communism maybe good for you. So be it. But Communism does not ROCK; not when it is forced on me. When you communist come to my door and force me to give you all my possessiion you have violated at least three commandments. Our Catholic Church does not force people into a form of government especially communism - a sin.

Got it in one, and very succinctly! Yes, the fundamental difference is between joining and leaving a commune as an act of free will, vs. being forced to join a commune, and being unable to leave because of a big wall manned by guards who have orders to shoot.

The first is compatible with Catholicism, and yes, some religious communities are properly described as communes.

The second is antithetical to our beliefs, and is a direct affront to a God who created us as free creatures.

 

[meme1961]

Now, the thing about eliminating everyone’s right to property is that it requires a lot of bad stuff like lying and killing. Elimination of private property is so antithetical to human nature that one cannot avoid the bad stuff while stealing everybody’s property.

I agree, but you jump the shark with:

So, no, communism cannot allow any religion in it.

Communism does not just allow religion, it requires it. There are some implementations of it that fuse religion and state together into one inseparable, indiscriminate mass. Others have a “separate” religion where in point of fact, that religion is a creation of, defined by, and controlled by the state.

This is where the convergence of ideas between a particularly constituted form of Catholic religious life and communism can be valid. That said, the differentiators are critical: One joins a religious community by an act of free will, and said community was created in obedience to God and is subordinate to him.

A community where one is forced to join (where one is essentially a slave) and where God is ALSO a slave of the state is what people normally mean in common usage of the term “communist”.

God created man to worship him. The enemy uses this basic drive to attack us by throwing up false religions, false prophets and idols. “False religions” include political systems that either seek to enslave “God”, or replace him as the focus of our worship.

 

[meme1961]

If that were the case, someone could propose a system of government-only production/ownership which explicitly promotes a particular religion (or doesn’t make any claims pro/con about God) and nobody could call it communism?

No. Because Communism requires religion. The problem is that not all people can recognize a religion when they see one.

God built us to worship him. Communism exploits that by setting itself up as God, or by the nearly identical process of creating a false God that it defines and controls, and that serves said state.

Think: “Henry the 8th and the Church of England.” Henry created his own church in order to serve his state.

Unlike Henry, Communism can’t hijack God ('cause of those pesky Ten Commandments) and thus needed to create a new religion out of nearly whole cloth.

There is a Christian Song that says it beautifully: “Brave - Gotta Serve Somebody”. Communism recognizes this as a fundamental truth.

 

[meme1961]

I am saying that implementing and maintaining government control of all property and production requires an abandonment of religion.

No, it doesn’t. It requires that the posited government suborn religion in service to the state.

Human beings are built to worship. Any governmental system that tries to deny this will last just about as long as a system that tries to deny our desire to create families.

Like I said, I can call my Pinto a Mercedes, but that doesn’t make it a Mercedes.

Philosophy now? Cool! Yeah, philosophy is about discriminating, but it also plays at abstractions (aspects being a kind of abstraction). If one defines religion as equal to “Catholicism”, then I would be in agreement with you, but “religion” is an abstraction, and thus in this context, refers to what I would call the natural religious impulse. The trick is to make people worship either the state, or a construct of the state, but it is simply impossible to eliminate religion.

IOW, People are naturally religious, thus any real world system has to allow for it.

Companies understand the importance of maintaining definitions

Mindshare. Or if you prefer: the informal application of memetics (note my user name).

which is why we have government protection of trademarks. Used to be that everyone called tissues Kleenex. You could buy generic Kleenex, but the Kleenex people didn’t like that, because then people might say, This is terrible Kleenex! but it would be some cheap type of tissues. This could give the real Kleenexes a bad name, right? So they started asserting their trademark protection, as did others like Xerox.

You can have the same thing in reverse: a bad thing becoming associated with something good. So you have communism, which is evil. Then you have religion, which few believe is actually bad and many believe is actually good.*

If a communist can get religion and communism together somehow, then people would be fooled into thinking that communism might be a good thing. It’s kind of like when a crook is on trial and a very well-respected person gives him a good character testimony.

Which is the case. As an example: you’ll find that most modern supporters of regulatory socialism use a lot of moral assertions and base their arguments on an unspecified and anonymous moral authority.

A quote out of a recent political speech: “It is the right thing to do”. Being experienced in memetics, my immediate response to hearing this was : “Sez WHO!?”

Then people begin to forget how evil communism really is, how it is just a huge slave plantation with “the government” as the plantation owners.

Just like if communists can get it spread around that communism is just like the lifestyle of the peaceful Native Americans…

It is easy to spread that lie, since most people haven’t studied the history. All (and I do mean ALL) American Indians had a concept of private property, and would fight and kill in defense of said property.

In some cases, the property being so vast, and their technology and level of development so primitive, they viewed the property as being owned by the tribe (a tribe would go to war to defend its traditional territory, its “property”), not by an individual, but in almost all cases (there were some exceptions, some of which were religiously motivated) where the property was that which could be grasped by an individual (a horse, a spear, a pot or a hide), that property had an owner.

Defining that as communistic would be like defining the US as a communist country because of our huge amount of publicly owned land.

 

[meme1961]

The ideal amount of slavery?? You ARE joking aren’t you?

Nope. Paying any amount of tax is a level of slavery (it is not voluntary!).

No taxation of any kind . . . no government. And government is necessary.

I would say ZERO. Which is why statism is immoral.

It is a necessary evil, yes.

???Nonsense. Two or more individuals can contract for mutual benefit.

They can. I was not denying that. What you fail to admit is that one of those individuals may be lying, or may cheat.

They can contract for private arbitration in case of disputes. They can carry insurance to cover damages in case of nonperformance.

And what happens if the insurance company refuses to pay up?

Those who do not carry insurance run the risk of not being able to trade. No state parasites needed.

Wrong.

I have to say, this is a unique perspective.

I am indeed unique. My particular expression of the idea may very well be unique. The idea, however, is not. I suspect that if you polled the group and asked how many of them believe that some level of government, that imposes some level of taxation is necessary, you’d find that I am in the majority.

As a classical liberal, I tend towards minimizing the level of slavery, but I do not believe that it can be reduced to zero.

“Slavery value of 1”??? Too bad for the “1”, huh? Oh well, the end justifies the means so it’s A-OK to have such a righteous state.

Indeed, which is the lesson we take from Church history. The Church demonstrated the serious risk of allowing itself to become not just the Church, but also a political power.

The operative word is MAN, and apt to be wrong as are all men. Especially when they begin dabbling in people pushing.

Hence “FREEDOM”, and the ability to push back.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Read the wiki. article and I’m not seeing any practical description of how this would work. It appears to be as Meme describes, there would have to be an overriding authority to grant property/licenses. As I see it, YOU are the one who needs to read more.

For the love of Mike! Do you think everybody who owns his own tools and operates a car repair, out of a building he has saved to buy, took it from you or one of your corporate goober buddies? They saved the money and opened a business. What in the world is so hard for you IBMers to figure out about it? Individual support of one’s family without the corporate teat? You guys are the same as a dad gum IRS agent. All individual ownership is to be discouraged, right?

Do you think some guy with a florist shop in the local strip center took it from you? What the heck is wrong with you people?

You and Barry Obama want Joe the Plumber to share a bit more. Is that it?

 

[Cho]

Oh, it doesn’t encompass distributism then. Distributism is the private ownership/control of land and capital exclusively, not government ownership/control. I guess that clears that up.

As long as you are talking about a stateless distributist society, yes, then it is “cleared up”. Legislation, regulation, “encouraging” is PUBLIC (state) CONTROL.

And to those asking questions about distributists’ consistency. It is a system, while extant all over the world and preceding capitalism, that has not had a political presence since at least the secular revolution “enlightenment”. We are working on that.

Why “work” on it?? Go for it. Create your Mondragon. There seem to be plenty of you that want this. I am eager to see your utopian stateless Distributionist society. What exactly is it you are “working on” that is stopping you?

 

[Cho]

As you just stated it, no they are not an option. Who will enforce the “contracted” part of the “contracted for by agreeing parties” part of the above if one of the parties doesn’t like the result?

The parties carry insurance to cover damages in the event of nonperformance or dispute. Those who cheat will quickly be unable to get insurance and people will refuse to trade with them without insurance.

Sure. You just proved my point. Such arbitration is a contract that is, at the end of the day, enforced by a government court, not a private one.

See above.
Besides, the state routinely NEGATES contracts, proving that they do not even perform that part of their alleged purpose.

If sufficient amounts of protection is supplied by other legislation, then I could probably agree with that.

Then we will not agree because “legislation” chains the people and protects the powerful and the state. Legislation/regulation, etc. is a device to prevent the common masses from participating in the economy. They do not protect YOU, unless you are a corporate crony. I see no reason you can’t have your state society if that is what you want. I have no wish to force MY ideal on anyone else.

Historically, not true. This doesn’t mean that the necessary protections couldn’t be supplied by other forms of legislation (I’ve proposed a few myself), but your assertion is simply not sustainable when checked against history.

See above about the “protections” of statism.

There are reasons why your assertion is not true, and they are covered in most third year economic texts I’ve perused, but to give you the bullet: commodity monopolies do need to be regulated by the state in how they acquire control over a majority of that commodity.

And what are these econ texts you refer to?? Clearly not “Man, Economy, and State”. You are welcome to a keynesian state, you simply have no right to force it on anyone else…and young people are wising up to that.

I could be wrong, of course. But your assertion simply isn’t factually true. He has spoken enough, and written enough, to have a huge amount of paper trail, and that paper trail contains some fairly nutty stuff that will be an issue in the general election.

OK, I’ll bite. Exactly WHAT is this “nutty stuff” you refer to?? You DO realize that Ron Paul is more thoroughly adherent to the Constitution than were the guys who wrote it?? That he simply adheres to what is SUPPOSED to be the law of the land, that law that everyone of these lying looting pols SWEARS to uphold on taking office??

Ah. I get it. You are a fan.

I greatly admire his integrity and character. I no longer vote, but I would vote for RP.

Even there his positions are assailable. There, in fact, is where some of his nuttiness lives. Don’t get me wrong, he makes good points, and in part I could support some of his goals, depending on actual policy prescriptions, but the man himself simply carries to much baggage to be elected President.

What asinine garbage. You blather a lot of smearing but post NOTHING. I suppose Romneycare is not “baggage” for Romney, Gardisil and the Transnational Highway are not “baggage” for Perry (I won’t even go into his economic illiteracy), Cains being a Fed chairman, sexual harrasser, and admittedly economically ignorant is not “baggage”, Bachman has no baggage except she worked for the IRS as a prosecutor and contradicts herself within the same paragraph when she speaks. Santorum wants to nuke Iran…and anyone else he can, looted PA taxpayers for his kids schooling while lying about his residency in Va…but THAT’S not “baggage”. We have Newts 3 divorces (and cheating on and dumping a wife seriously ill)…yeah, I’ll trust a guy who lies to his wife to not lie to ME, not to mention he HAD his chance to reduce gov’t and blah, blah, blah years ago when he was in Congress and DIDN’T DO IT. So TELL me, what is Ron Pauls “baggage” that you think makes him so “unelectable”.

Not that he shouldn’t try, of course, if for no other reason than to make the candidates who do stand a chance respond to his positions.

Now THAT is an odd thing to say. Why should you want them to respond to his positions…I mean, his positions are so “NUTTY”, aren’t they?

While I appreciate zeal, I have no qualms about calling you on this kind of thing. To call expressing an opinion “Election Tampering” is a lie, and a malicious one at that. A good Christian does not engage in such, and with love and respect, I’m going to reprove you here.

Since you obvioulsy consider yourself the authority on being a “Good Christian” (your arrogance apparently knowing no bounds) perhaps you should save some of that “love and respect” (Ha!) reproof for yourself. Refusing to report election or poll results, refusing to post a candidates name, refusing to report on campaigtn rallies and fundraising from grassroots supporters that dwarf those of other candidates, refusing to report that 71% of military donations go to that candidate, repeatedly referring to that candidate in derogatory and marginalizing terms, CONSTANTLY telling the trained electorate that he CANNOT BE ELECTED instead of simply reporting the facts is ELECTION TAMPERING and God will judge these people for their lies…even if the sheep are too dumbed down to see how they are misled.

You may not like the opinions expressed about your candidate. You may believe them to be inaccurate. But expressing such opinions are not election tampering.

Yes, it is. See above.

 

[Cho]

Elections are often won by those who manage to capture the hearts of the polity, not necessarily by those who make a convincing argument that sustains the most reasonable policy prescriptions. There is a reason that the US was designed to be a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy (this exact issue is discussed in the Federalist Papers, if you are interested).

I prefer the Anti-Federalists, thank you. Patrick Henry was right when he smelt a rat. And fat lot of good the Federalist Papers OR the Constitution have done. How many have posted on this thread alone about our glorious “democracy”? “Capturing the hearts” of the “polity” is pretty much a sure thing when you begin training them to respond like Pavlovs dogs to sound bites and “expert opinion” before they are fully cognizant that they are being trained.

But to use terms like “manipulating” is again to succumb to your zeal. The dominant mass media outlets are undoubtedly left leaning, but even if they were firmly and always in the Obama camp, with 100% pro Obama coverage, 100% of the time, a charge of “manipulation” is untrue and unjust.

LOL!! Well, I’ll just have to STRONGLY disagree with you on this. It is ABSOLUTELY true and is the only reason the Marxist Obammunist won.

There are other outlets for information, and a voter chooses for themselves what they believe, and how they vote.

Are you really this naive?? You must have an elite group of family, friends, and acquaintances. Because I know a LOT of people who believe everything they see on TV news.

To claim otherwise is to imply that you support a form of government that is, at the very least, granted the power to control what people say as an indirect way of controlling what they think. I trust you don’t support such a system?

HOW did you arrive at this conclusion that I support any such thing??? NOTHING I have posted even implies any support for statism whatsoever. Saying it exists is not the same thing as saying I SUPPORT it.

 

[je333]

je333;8558527:

Yes, it is. While you post dictionary definitions of communism that are compatible with Catholicism (one can fairly describe certain religious communities as communes), you seem to be unwilling to admit that the common usage admits of only one definition.

May I suggest that in the future that you use qualifiers? I have a friend who approves of “Christian Communism”, but he never, never

uses just the word “communism” because it is, all by itself, a bad word.

Evil, in point of fact. Communism is responsible for one quarter of a billion deaths in the 20th century, as well as the religious persecution of Catholics across nearly one fifth of the world.

If a knife was used to kill a person, would the word knife become a bad word? If someone by the name of meme1961 committed sinful acts, would the name meme1961 becomes a bad word? the evil is the action my dear. If a person by the name of Christian killed someone, does it mean the word Christian is bad?

 

[meme1961]

For the love of Mike! Do you think everybody who owns his own tools and operates a car repair, out of a building he has saved to buy, took it from you or one of your corporate goober buddies? They saved the money and opened a business. What in the world is so hard for you IBMers to figure out about it? Individual support of one’s family without the corporate teat? You guys are the same as a dad gum IRS agent. All individual ownership is to be discouraged, right?

Wow! Your response totally ignores the questions asked multiple times within this thread, then turns around and totally misrepresents the concerns being expressed.

When someone goes off like this, but fails to answer critical questions, it smacks of the result of a memetic defense mechanism (for those not familiar with memetic defense systems: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is a meme built into Christianity which defends it from attack or competition by other memes).

OK, let me try this a different way: A Corporate Entity (a corporation) is any group, any collective. Within the context of this discussion, corporation is used as as short hand term for an legally incorporated business, but it also carries the meaning of refering to any collective.

Definition of Corporate:

United or combined into one body; collective: Example - made a corporate effort to finish the job.

Since two Distributists have made the point that their ideology is about the concentration of wealth, then being a “for profit” business is not dispositive in regards to defining an entity as properly distributist or not. IOW, Any sufficiently large concentration of wealth is in violation of Distributist principles.

The Catholic Church is one of the largest corporate entities in the world. The largest, richest diocese in the Catholic church owns enough capital, outright, to fall well within the high end of any reasonable Distributist definition of “too big.”

So, will the Catholic Church, or certain (or perhaps all) dioceses be held in violation of Distributist principles? Or will license (exception or permission) be granted to entities that the Distributists are ideologically supportive of?

Do you think some guy with a florist shop in the local strip center took it from you? What the heck is wrong with you people?

You and Barry Obama want Joe the Plumber to share a bit more. Is that it?

I, personally, want the Distributists to: 1) Define the term 2) Give a list of policy prescriptions.

 

[meme1961]

The parties carry insurance to cover damages in the event of nonperformance or dispute. Those who cheat will quickly be unable to get insurance and people will refuse to trade with them without insurance.

You dodged the question again. It seems you aren’t able to understand that what you call private will very quickly evolve into a government. That is, after all, what a government court does: insure that if your rights are violated, that you have recourse.

Then we will not agree because “legislation” chains the people and protects the powerful and the state.

While heavily negative terminology, and fundamentally wrong (legislation does not prevent crimes except in as much as it may act as a deterrent), you also fail to admit the simple reality that legislation also protects individuals and the weak. If you can’t admit what is real, then discussing this with you won’t benefit either of us.

Legislation/regulation, etc. is a device to prevent the common masses from participating in the economy.

That is both totally untrue and extremely polemic. I have to wonder if you posted that seriously, or if you playing a game to see if you can get someone to angry enough to start making personal attacks.

Legislation and regulation are intended to protect the person from immoral or unethical acts. While I might agree that over the last sixty years the FedGov has overstepped its Constitutional bounds, it is simply untrue to paint all legislation as a tool of economic repression.

They do not protect YOU, unless you are a corporate crony. I see no reason you can’t have your state society if that is what you want. I have no wish to force MY ideal on anyone else.

In that case, you won’t have any issues about living in such a state, nor will you try to oppose it, since you have no interest in imposing YOUR system on us, right?

You are welcome to a keynesian state, you simply have no right to force it on anyone else…and young people are wising up to that.

Major straw man. I have never expressed any desire for a “keynesian state”, what ever the heck that is.

OK, I’ll bite. Exactly WHAT is this “nutty stuff” you refer to??

The Gold Standard. That is nutty. Forcing the country back on to the gold standard would cripple the economy, and drastically limit its ability to grow. Very few modern economists are silly enough to earnestly and sincerely support such an idea.

You DO realize that Ron Paul is more thoroughly adherent to the Constitution than were the guys who wrote it??

Do you realize just how over the top that statement is? But if true, then that proves Ron Paul is a bit nutty, yes, but more importantly, that he is dangerous. Extremism is not to be automatically dismissed, but it should be automatically distrusted until it can prove itself. If Ron Paul is really more “Constitutional” than the Constitution’s authors, then he is adding things to the Constitution that aren’t there. We’ve had quite enough of that already, thank you very much.

That he simply adheres to what is SUPPOSED to be the law of the land, that law that everyone of these lying looting pols SWEARS to uphold on taking office??

You just contradicted yourself.

Also, you don’t seem to have understood most of what I wrote. I have already stated that I support some of what he supports. But his baggage won’t allow him to get elected, and some of his policy prescriptions would be disastrous for the country.

Taken as a whole, I can’t support the man. But I have the integrity to admit when and where I agree with him, and hope that his being active in the race will have a positive influence on the man or woman who does get elected.

What asinine garbage. You blather a lot of smearing but post NOTHING.

See above.

I suppose Romneycare is not “baggage” for Romney, Gardisil and the Transnational Highway are not “baggage” for Perry (I won’t even go into his economic illiteracy), Cains being a Fed chairman, sexual harrasser, and admittedly economically ignorant is not “baggage”, Bachman has no baggage except she worked for the IRS as a prosecutor and contradicts herself within the same paragraph when she speaks. Santorum wants to nuke Iran…and anyone else he can, looted PA taxpayers for his kids schooling while lying about his residency in Va…but THAT’S not “baggage”. We have Newts 3 divorces (and cheating on and dumping a wife seriously ill)…yeah, I’ll trust a guy who lies to his wife to not lie to ME, not to mention he HAD his chance to reduce gov’t and blah, blah, blah years ago when he was in Congress and DIDN’T DO IT. So TELL me, what is Ron Pauls “baggage” that you think makes him so “unelectable”.

I gave just one example above. I could add about four more off the top of my head, but at this point it is clear that you are a fan, and that no argument would convince you. But since you don’t vote, then it really doesn’t matter what you believe, as you will only hurt the man by staying home. If you truly believe in him, then you should vote for him.

Now THAT is an odd thing to say. Why should you want them to respond to his positions…I mean, his positions are so “NUTTY”, aren’t they?

You’re a pretty black and white thinker, aren’t you? I say that some of his positions are nutty, and you read that as ALL.

I believe that where his ideas are good and his policy prescriptions would have beneficial outcomes that the other candidates, especially those who have a chance at being elected, should at least respond to so that we can figure out which would be the best candidate to vote for.

continued . . . 6000 word limit.

 

[meme1961]

Since you obvioulsy consider yourself the authority on being a “Good Christian” (your arrogance apparently knowing no bounds)

So, any reproof of you makes the reprover infinitely arrogant? We need a whole new word, one way WAY past “defensive” to define your response here!

I don’t need to be an authority, or even a Good Christian in order to reprove you.

perhaps you should save some of that “love and respect” (Ha!) reproof for yourself.

Feel free to reprove me if you wish. If you feel that I’ve been uncharitable or disrespectful, then point it out.

Refusing to report election or poll results, refusing to post a candidates name, refusing to report on campaign rallies and fundraising from grassroots supporters that dwarf those of other candidates, refusing to report that 71% of military donations go to that candidate, repeatedly referring to that candidate in derogatory and marginalizing terms, CONSTANTLY telling the trained electorate that he CANNOT BE ELECTED instead of simply reporting the facts is ELECTION TAMPERING

No, it isn’t. Calling it election tampering is a lie, and that is where I will again reprove you. If I stick a gun in your back and tell you how to vote, that is election tampering. If I replace a box of ballots with a box I filled with ballots that register votes for my candidate, that is election tampering. If I take large and visible arms down to a polling place, then loudly proclaim that you’d just better vote for my candidate or else! . . . that is election tampering.

You should also consider that the media may not report what you believe to be the truth, but that may be because what you believe to be the truth may not in fact be the truth.

A reporter who reports on one candidate, but not another, is not tampering with an election. A reporter is free to choose what they will report on, and when they will report. That is called “freedom”, and is what a free press does. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it immoral or illegal, and it certainly doesn’t make it “election tampering”.

and God will judge these people for their lies…even if the sheep are too dumbed down to see how they are misled.

What lies? When a reporter doesn’t report on what you want them to, that is not a lie, it is just an omission. By the logic of finite time and space, all reporters omit an infinite amount of information, choosing to report on what they think their audience will want to read or hear about. It is, after all, their paper. They have the right to choose what gets printed in it, so long as they don’t engage in slander.

Yes, it is. See above.

No, it isn’t. Repeatedly asserting this won’t make it true when it isn’t.

After a few exchanges with you, it is clear that at best my responses to you simply tempt you to anger. We don’t seem to be engaging constructively. I’m going to bow out and stop responding to you in order to avoid providing that temptation.

God Bless, and Please Vote your Beliefs! If you believe Ron Paul is the best candidate, please get out and vote for him.

 

[meme1961]

If a knife was used to kill a person, would the word knife become a bad word?

I’m not sure I consider that a valid analogy (a knife is a thing, a tool, while a political system is a memetic system). That said, I know a lot of people who consider the image, existence of and concept of “gun” to be very bad. Even talking about guns in a public school can get your child suspended.

If someone by the name of meme1961 committed sinful acts, would the name meme1961 becomes a bad word?

How many kids do you know named “Judas”?

For Americans, Benedict Arnold has some pretty nasty baggage.

the evil is the action my dear. If a person by the name of Christian killed someone, does it mean the word Christian is bad?

No, but if Christianity as a memetic system killed millions of people as a natural or logical consequence of its stated beliefs, it would be.

And is, to about one billion people. They usually use the word “Crusader”, not Christian, but you get my meaning.

If the point you made was supposed to be one about intrinsic evil, or a one of formal linguistics, then I may have missed your point.

 

[Cho]

You dodged the question again. It seems you aren’t able to understand that what you call private will very quickly evolve into a government. That is, after all, what a government court does: insure that if your rights are violated, that you have recourse.

I dodged nothing. I am attempting to explain to you how one version of statelessness could work. Nowhere in my explanation did I speak of government in any role at all, much less insuring any recourse (which they do not. As it stands the state is quite willing to “insure my rights” IF I go to the trouble and expense of hiring an attorney to represent me. Even after damages are awarded by a government court it is usually up to the plaintiff to collect). It may be your opinion that a state will quickly evolve no matter what the educational and moral condition of the people BUT I disagree. The difficulty the Federalists had getting the Constitution ratified due to the suspicions of a better educated population shows that the state may not be inevitable, especially given the history of nation states in the past 150 years or so. I do believe you are underrating the difficulty a bad actor could be in if he finds no one willing to trade with him.

While heavily negative terminology, and fundamentally wrong (legislation does not prevent crimes except in as much as it may act as a deterrent), you also fail to admit the simple reality that legislation also protects individuals and the weak. If you can’t admit what is real, then discussing this with you won’t benefit either of us.

Why on earth should I admit something that I find so untrue in practice? Legislation protects cronies of the state, voting blocs to gain support, it very rarely protects those truly in need of it in any meaningful way. Again, exhibit A is the compulsory dumbing down and conversion to Marxist state worship and acceptance of homosexuality of schoolchildren. School children are the weakest of the weak, next to the unborn. I needn’t remind you of the great protections the state provides them.

That is both totally untrue and extremely polemic. I have to wonder if you posted that seriously, or if you playing a game to see if you can get someone to angry enough to start making personal attacks.

Your asserting that something is untrue and should not be discussed because it is a minority opinion neatly dispenses with any need to provide support for your view…in your own mind. You have not addressed HOW it is untrue. I can show you many instances where it IS true. Do you need me to do this, are you that unaware? It is true that regulations are presented as being created to protect but their purpose is restriction of economic participation and control.

Legislation and regulation are intended to protect the person from immoral or unethical acts. While I might agree that over the last sixty years the FedGov has overstepped its Constitutional bounds, it is simply untrue to paint all legislation as a tool of economic repression.

I do agree that the latest tendency to regulate behavior according to Marxist morality surpasses the “blue laws” the “liberals” accuse the “religious” of “cramming down their throats”. But this does not make them righteous. Moral law is the province of the Church, not the state. If there is regulation that is not meant as economic restriction or a means of controlling the population/collecting revenue through fines then usually it was unnecessary as the market was addressing the issue and the state jumped on the bandwagon. Exhibit B is the Drug War. As evidence grows that the CIA is heavily involved in drug trafficking to fund covert ops meddling in the affairs of other countries, we see the usefulness of this “war” on feeding the “criminal justice industry”. Drug laws to “protect” us are responsible for throwing young people in prison to be raped…for their protection, ostensibly but in reality to keep the price of drugs up for cartels. The state has no authority to dictate what we may eat, drink, what drugs we may take, where we may live, who we may associate with or who we may hate. To think they do acquiesces to the underlying presumption that we are their property.

In that case, you won’t have any issues about living in such a state, nor will you try to oppose it, since you have no interest in imposing YOUR system on us, right?

You misunderstand. I advocate no system but liberty. There would be no way to impose my will on you. That would be immoral, setting myself up as god over you.

Major straw man. I have never expressed any desire for a “keynesian state”, what ever the heck that is.

It is the economics that have been espoused by the state for the past 80 years or so. John Maynard Keynes. Perpetual debt, saving is bad, spending brings prosperity, central banking. Fiat currency. Down is up.

 

[Cho]

Meme posted:

The Gold Standard. That is nutty. Forcing the country back on to the gold standard would cripple the economy, and drastically limit its ability to grow. Very few modern economists are silly enough to earnestly and sincerely support such an idea.

LOL!! But YOU’RE not a Keynesian, as are the vast majority of “modern economists“!!! Too funny! And I suppose you believe Bernankes response to Ron Paul as to why the Fed has stockpiles of gold: because it’s “tradition”! Darn right it’s tradition! Gold has been a reliable form of monetary exchange for thousands of years. It has value, unlike the company scrip we are forced to work for that the Federal reserve banking cartel can inflate at will and loot of value. This notion that the economy would be “crippled” by sound money is ludicrous especially in light of the current global bankruptcy brought on by the theories of “modern economists”. Most “modern economists”, like most “modern” doctors and scientists are creatures of the state, dependent on Federal funding for grants, reimbursements. If you are sincere and simply not a Neocon blog plant then you need to get to Mises.org and learn some economics…especially if you are going to make such pronouncements. Meanwhile, I’ll gladly take my pay in some of that silly old gold and you can have the dollars, worth pennies after 100 years of Fed manipulation, inflation.

Do you realize just how over the top that statement is? But if true, then that proves Ron Paul is a bit nutty, yes, but more importantly, that he is dangerous.

Yes. Actually adhering to the words of the Connstitution, instead of swearing to and then ignoring or subverting it is “nutty” and “dangerous”. LOL! Well, then give me “nutty and dangerous” instead of lying and cheating. If you think the Constitution is dangerous then why are you recommending the Federalist Papers???

Extremism is not to be automatically dismissed, but it should be automatically distrusted until it can prove itself.

So now following the law of the land, the Constitution that all those pols swear to uphold, actually DOING it, is being “EXTREMIST”. The rest have slid so far left that the old central state construct is too EXTREME for the borg we have become. Can’t have that, how “nutty”. Do you read what you write??

If Ron Paul is really more “Constitutional” than the Constitution’s authors, then he is adding things to the Constitution that aren’t there. We’ve had quite enough of that already, thank you very much.

LOL! And you accuse ME of setting up straw men! I was REFERRING to Jeffersons unConstitutional Louisiana Purchase.

You just contradicted yourself.

LOL! Mea Culpa! I Should have posted “everyone ELSE”. I do apologize that my meaning was so unclear to you. Of course, knowing Ron Paul as you claim to to be able to judge him “nutty”, I’m surprised you didn’t see my mistake right away and overlook it, being SUCH a Good Christian.

Also, you don’t seem to have understood most of what I wrote. I have already stated that I support some of what he supports.

How odd. I could never support a man I thought was mentally unbalanced.

But his baggage won’t allow him to get elected, and some of his policy prescriptions would be disastrous for the country.

They would be very good for the country but very disastrous for the STATE, not synonymous entities. Since this “baggage” you refer to is simply his advocating a gold standard, something proven and tested throughout history, as opposed to economic policies that have the globe on the brink of disaster, I must disagree. His economic policies and predictions are gaining wide acknowledgement and acceptance among those who obtain information beyond regime Keynesians. What will keep him from being elected is the dirty tricks of the GOP and the MSM who stand to lose a great deal of control over the people and their property if he gets elected.

Taken as a whole, I can’t support the man. But I have the integrity to admit when and where I agree with him, and hope that his being active in the race will have a positive influence on the man or woman who does get elected.

How can someone “nutty” with “baggage” have a positive influence. I do not understand this contradiction. You want him “in the race” to kick around, to ridicule? You have made plain what you think of his economic policies. ???

I could add about four more off the top of my head, but at this point it is clear that you are a fan, and that no argument would convince you.

LOL! I love your use of the term “fan”, short for “fanatic”. I could not possibly an informed citizen, judging the candidates on their merits and finding Ron Paul far superior. I’m just a “fan”. You excuse yourself from supporting your smear further because I am so irrational in my devotion to my idol reasoned arguments could not convince me.

But since you don’t vote, then it really doesn’t matter what you believe, as you will only hurt the man by staying home. If you truly believe in him, then you should vote for him.

Please reread. I said I do not vote but I will vote for RP.

 

[Cho]

You’re a pretty black and white thinker, aren’t you? I say that some of his positions are nutty, and you read that as ALL.

“Nutty” is an assertion of craziness, and crazy does not compartmentalize. That is why the favorite MSM adjective for him is “kook”. It is simply a code word for the herd that he deviates from the regime mainstream, different=dangerous, strange, crazy, blah, blah.

I believe that where his ideas are good and his policy prescriptions would have beneficial outcomes that the other candidates, especially those who have a chance at being elected, should at least respond to so that we can figure out which would be the best candidate to vote for.

I have a newsflash for you. The other candidates are only addressing these things BECAUSE they know people are listening to RP. When he is not elected and no longer in Congress the issues you DO like to see your “electable” candidates address, won’t be. I don’t get it, do you need the purty hairdos? The plastic botoxed faces, the used car salesman delivery? Got to be a slick willy to be “electable”???And you are OK with that? Resigned to it? What is it? Do you LIKE being lied to?

 

[je333]

Yes, we would, because the only difference here would be in who and how “God” is defined. In such a society, you can bet your life that “God” would be a construct of, defined by, and controlled by the state. Case in point: Red China’s “Catholic Bishops”.

There is a reason for the First Amendment, as China is demonstrating.

Again. uch:

Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master, I beg you to tell me, will we never learn from our mistakes!?

God will be the ultimate authoritative leader as a KING who will guide his children with his divine guidance. Katholikos(Greek = universal) For it to be really universal his covenant will be extended to other modern religions and he will(is already) be their God.

 

[je333]

I’m not sure I consider that a valid analogy (a knife is a thing, a tool, while a political system is a memetic system). That said, I know a lot of people who consider the image, existence of and concept of “gun” to be very bad. Even talking about guns in a public school can get your child suspended.

How many kids do you know named “Judas”?

For Americans, Benedict Arnold has some pretty nasty baggage.

No, but if Christianity as a memetic system killed millions of people as a natural or logical consequence of its stated beliefs, it would be.

And is, to about one billion people. They usually use the word “Crusader”, not Christian, but you get my meaning.

If the point you made was supposed to be one about intrinsic evil, or a one of formal linguistics, then I may have missed your point.

I see government as a tool as I see everything to be a tool for our main purpose of salvation.

It is all in the mind. What people picture the word to be in their mind as they associate the word. I was simply focusing on the MEANING of the word itself. Communism. I was not talking about the horrors and acts of evil that happened. To be honest, and this is just my opinion, that communism to me really is good. If it is runned by good people like saints, it is heavenly. I like the idea of egalitarian society where everybody is equally wealthy. . Perhaps you have not read my other posts where i have proposed my own idea of communism. Here it is, just for you: * TALENTS OF THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE, PROFESSION FOR THE PEOPLE GIVEN FREELY COMING FROM THEIR HEART WILL BE RECIPROCATED WITH PEOPLE’S TALENTS, ACTIONS AND PROFESSIONS. THIS WILL BE UNDER A NON MONETARY SYSTEM. COMMUNITIES WOULD BE MODELED LIKE MONASTERIES. EVERYONE IS BLESSED WITH TALENTS. NO ONE WOULD BE SELFISH AND LAZY. ANYONE WHO CAN’T PHYSICALLY WORK HAVE OTHER NON PHYSICAL TALENTS TO OFFER AND ANYONE WHO IS SICK AND ILL, WILL BE TAKEN CARED OF NOT SHUNNED AWAY, NEGLECTED, PUSHED AWAY, ABANDONED. HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS FREE. LET’S PRAY THAT THIS WILL COME TRUE SOON."]* conceptually good but i don’t know how successful it would be when it is actually practiced.

On other things, Judas Thaddeus or Simply St Jude. We have a little shrine of him at Church and I always pray to him every time I am in desperate need. And yes, it took me a while to get used to saying St Jude without thinking of Judas Escariot. I do, however, feel sorry for Judas. I believe he got possessed by the devil. He just didn’t know what to do and forgot that God is merciful.

i wanna say some more and hammer my point but im getting sleepy… maybe next time. god bless!