Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[holyreyes]

Let’s back up and make sure we are on the same page. It seems to me that these are the things you are advocating for.

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.

I am I correct in assuming that this is what you are advocating?

Also, it seems to me that you are also advocating these.

1. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.
2. That they society that you are espousing will solve all mankind’s problems.

Am I correct in assuming that you are also advocating the above?

Where am I advocating a secular messianism?

 

[freeRadical]

Where am I advocating a secular messianism?

I never said you advocated a secular messianism. I said you advocated Communism. So you don’t advocate the following?

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.
4. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.

 

[nmgauss]

Do you believe in God nmgauss?

Being a secular humanist, I have no belief in a supernatural being. If I did believe in “God”, which one would I have to believe in to suit your requirements? Would it be Yahweh or Brahman or the Arian God, or the Athanasian God, or the Gnostic God? Or maybe I’m a Deist, in which I believe God has no influence on humans.

 

[holyreyes]

Let’s back up and make sure we are on the same page. It seems to me that these are the things you are advocating for.

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.

I am I correct in assuming that this is what you are advocating?

Also, it seems to me that you are also advocating these.

1. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.
2. That they society that you are espousing will solve all mankind’s problems.

Am I correct in assuming that you are also advocating the above?

freeRadical,

you need to brush up on your catechism. here is what the catholic church condems:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[freeRadical]

Nope, it didn’t say that.

Yes it does.

Not in how you explain and understand it to be…

Oh, so you’re not advocating for communal ownership and sharing of good?

Don’t we all “share” the Ocean and the material Earth? Where have you heard me say that people would be void of private property? Maybe private ownership because you are trying to give what you have… What I am advocating is actually an acquisition of property and services being given to you but it is being made emphasis on the core philosophy of GIVING because everything that you have, you give and share and you receive what people give and share intellectually, physically and spiritually!

What’s the difference between private property and private ownership?

What do you mean by "acquisition of property and services’? Does that mean forcibly taking property from people?

You assume that everyone will want to give what they have. Why would you assume that?

 

[freeRadical]

freeRadical,

you need to brush up on your catechism. here is what the catholic church condems:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

I know what the it says. Stop dodging the question. Are you or are you not advocating the things I mentioned above?

 

[holyreyes]

I never said you advocated a secular messianism. I said you advocated Communism. So you don’t advocate the following?

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.
4. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.

freeRadical,

Your own knowledge of Atheistic Communism which you think I advocate dismantles both God and mammon. I only advocate on dismantling mammon… Does that answer your question?

 

[freeRadical]

freeRadical,

Your own knowledge of Atheistic Communism which you think I advocate dismantles both God and mammon. I only advocate on dismantling mammon… Does that answer your question?

No, please answer each question specifically.

1. Do you advocate a society that does not use money?
2. Do you advocate a society that does not have government?
3. Do you advocate a society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods?
4. Do you advocate a society where people do not profit from their talents and skills? \Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession?

 

[holyreyes]

Being a secular humanist, I have no belief in a supernatural being. If I did believe in “God”, which one would I have to believe in to suit your requirements? Would it be Yahweh or Brahman or the Arian God, or the Athanasian God, or the Gnostic God? Or maybe I’m a Deist, in which I believe God has no influence on humans.

Then how can you even attempt to ask your previous questions on your previous posts about God? And why be on this forum where believers abound and full on topics of God? Are you discerning?

 

[holyreyes]

No, please answer each question specifically.

1. Do you advocate a society that does not use money?
2. Do you advocate a society that does not have government?
3. Do you advocate a society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods?
4. Do you advocate a society where people do not profit from their talents and skills? \Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession?

I am starting to believe that you do not read any of my posts because if you do, you will find the answers to what you are looking for…

 

[freeRadical]

I am starting to believe that you do not read any of my posts because if you do, you will find the answers to what you are looking for…

It seems to be that you are just like Robert, dodging the questions, and refusing to answer anything specifically.

I have read your posts and this is what you are advocating:

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.
4. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.

Do you deny that you are advocating the above?

 

[holyreyes]

It seems to be that you are just like Robert, dodging the questions, and refusing to answer anything specifically.

I have read your posts and this is what you are advocating:

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.
4. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.

Do you deny that you are advocating the above?

I have posted numerously in the manner of language and my own usage of words…

 

[freeRadical]

I have posted numerously in the manner of language and my own usage of words…

Just. Answer. The. Question.

This is what you are advocating:

1. A society that does not use money.
2. A society that does not have governments
3. A society where there is communal ownership and sharing of goods.
4. A society where people do not profit from their talents and skills. Where all people are rewarded equally for their talents, skills, and choice of profession.

Do you deny that you are advocating the above? Yes or no?

 

[nmgauss]

Then how can you even attempt to ask your previous questions on your previous posts about God? And why be on this forum where believers abound and full on topics of God? Are you discerning?

My posts do not necessarily conform to my beliefs. I am asking the forum questions based on my understanding of conventional beliefs of Catholics. In addition, if I were a Deist, then all discussions about God’s influence on current affairs would be pointless.

 

[holyreyes]

My posts do not necessarily conform to my beliefs. I am asking the forum questions based on my understanding of conventional beliefs of Catholics. In addition, if I were a Deist, then all discussions about God’s influence on current affairs would be pointless.

In other words, you believe that God created the Earth, then left for vacation to play bingo for 4.5 billion years?

 

[nmgauss]

In other words, you believe that God created the Earth, then left for vacation to play bingo for 4.5 billion years?

That would be accurate if I was a Deist.

 

[minkymurph]

They condemned Socialism period. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the State. It’s still socialism whether its secular or not, whether its atheistic or not. Non-atheistic Socialism is basically theocracy which the Church has condemned as well. I’m not saying the Church had endorsed Capitalism, but they haven’t condemned it like Socialism. Also, the Church has endorsed free enterprise and economic freedom.

To my knowledge the Church has always advocated protection of property rights so yes, they do not endorse state ownership of everything. But, there are many shades of ‘socialism’ and not all shades are against free enterprise outright. Radical socialists yes, but not all socialists are radical socialists, just as all capitalists are radically capitalist. All in all, it cannot be said everything about socialism is bad and everything about capitalism is good. The current economic recession happened in the liberal west and socialism was not the cause. In my view, the cause was good old fashioned greed and a weakness of capitalism as a theory is it more readily lends itself to materialism and greed.

By society I assume you mean government. You assume that the government (1) knows what is best for society as a whole and (2) cares about what is best for society as a whole.

No I don’t mean government and I’m too much of realist to think the government knows what is best for society or care about what is best for society. I mean society as a whole.

Government cares about votes and if a certain actions or behaviour promote outrage, violence or reactionary emotions governments are forced to act or risk not being re-elected. On these occasions governments are prepared to restrict individual rights.

I didn’t say that rights aren’t restricted in the name of the “public good”. I said why do they need to be? If rights are restricted can they really be called rights anymore?

The major ‘why’ is security. There is no such thing as an absolute right and national security will trump everything. I think most here would agree on the right to life, but the right of individuals or a group of individuals who present a real and threat to the lives of others may find their their right to life diminished.

I think we can all agree on the right to liberty, but those who commit certain crimes will loose that right to protect society.

Other reasons- the health and welfare of society as a whole

People have a right to consume alcohol, drive, have sex, have a family, marry to mention but a few, but all are restricted or qualified for the good of society. No one is saying they do not have the right to do it, but only within certain limits.

The UN says we have a right to education but that does not mean individuals have a right to attend any school they choose.

People are free to smoke if they choose but others have the right not to smoke so smoking is restricted.

We have a right to use public parks but if there is a big special event on we may not be permitted to enter the park or a section of it. We respect that because we respect the rights of others, even though it is our right to use the public park.

We have a right to freedom of speech but out of consideration for others, on occasion we voluntarily curtail that right in order not to be offensive.

There are absolute rights in European Law; the right not to tortured or falsely imprisoned are two of them and I would say with good reason, but every society restricts and qualifies most rights in order to balance the rights of all when they conflict, and for the benefit of society as whole. That does not mean they are no longer a right.

 

[freeRadical]

To my knowledge the Church has always advocated protection of property rights so yes, they do not endorse state ownership of everything. But, there are many shades of ‘socialism’ and not all shades are against free enterprise outright. Radical socialists yes, but not all socialists are radical socialists, just as all capitalists are radically capitalist. All in all, it cannot be said everything about socialism is bad and everything about capitalism is good. The current economic recession happened in the liberal west and socialism was not the cause. In my view, the cause was good old fashioned greed and a weakness of capitalism as a theory is it more readily lends itself to materialism and greed.

The problem is people confuse economic systems and political systems. Socialism is an economic system in which the mean of production are owned by the State. Period. That is the definition. There are not different shades of Socialism. There is Socialism. Period. And the Church has condemned it. Period. People don’t understand what Socialism is and use the world “socialist” to describe things that have nothing to do with Socialism.

There has not been an economic system, yet discovered, that has done more to improve the lot of the ordinary man and lift millions out of abject poverty than Capitalism.

What caused the recession in the West was not Capitalism, it was government interference in the free market and the government and Federal Reserve’s implementation of failed Keynesian policies.

No I don’t mean government and I’m too much of realist to think the government knows what is best for society or care about what is best for society. I mean society as a whole.

Government cares about votes and if a certain actions or behaviour promote outrage, violence or reactionary emotions governments are forced to act or risk not being re-elected. On these occasions governments are prepared to restrict individual rights.

Oh, so governments don’t restrict individual rights for the good of society they restrict individual rights to get re-elected.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No I don’t mean government and I’m too much of realist to think the government knows what is best for society or care about what is best for society. I mean society as a whole.

Ask yourself how the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? Who’s to credit, if not governments? You could say that God is in control, and He is, but He works through people, including those individuals making up government. Whoever is in control, they are doing a real great job!

 

[freeRadical]

Ask yourself how the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? Who’s to credit, if not governments? You could say that God is in control, and He is, but He works through people, including those individuals making up government. Whoever is in control, they are doing a real great job!

Wow. Are you really that delusional. Governments are the reason that the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? No, they are not. Capitalism is the reason the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years, despite the efforts of government to the contrary. Whoever is in control, is doing a horrible job.

Are you ever going to over to the Capitalism thread you started and answer my questions? It seems like you have completely abandoned that thread.