National Economic Systems Conforming to Catholic Social Teaching

[HamtramckSteve]

My question is…are there any economic systems in existance today or in recent history that have it “right?” Would such a system work on a large scale…like in a country the size of the US?

It would work sufficiently if you follow the principle of subsidiarity, working from the bottom up, which is the natural way the world works.

The “free market” is actually composed of billions (trillions?) of individual daily economic decisions that can not be managed by anyone other than the two people in the contract. That is why socialism and central planning always fail.

You have $50 in your pocket to spend however you see fit. There are scores of options for you. No one can force you to go into any certain establishment and hand over your money.

Government tries in vain to minimize the amount of discretionary spending through taxes and mandatory fees, but they can’t get all of it. Even the tiniest amount of discretionary spending, especially when added up around the country, amounts to a huge pile of money that “disrupts” (from the planner’s viewpoint) their grand schemes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It would work sufficiently if you follow the principle of subsidiarity, working from the bottom up, which is the natural way the world works.

The “free market” is actually composed of billions (trillions?) of individual daily economic decisions that can not be managed by anyone other than the two people in the contract. That is why socialism and central planning always fail.

You have $50 in your pocket to spend however you see fit. There are scores of options for you. No one can force you to go into any certain establishment and hand over your money.

Government tries in vain to minimize the amount of discretionary spending through taxes and mandatory fees, but they can’t get all of it. Even the tiniest amount of discretionary spending, especially when added up around the country, amounts to a huge pile of money that “disrupts” (from the planner’s viewpoint) their grand schemes.

However, attempts to control the economy require greater and greater government power. Which is why communist governments always wind up becoming brutal dictatorships – power tends to corrupt, as Lord Action reminded us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

However, attempts to control the economy require greater and greater government power. Which is why communist governments always wind up becoming brutal dictatorships – power tends to corrupt, as Lord Action reminded us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That’s true, but that’s also why those systems always fail. Communism and socialism are not sustainable.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think I agree with you on all these points…but as stated in an earlier post, this isn’t really an area of which I am informed.

My question is…are there any economic systems in existance today or in recent history that have it “right?” Would such a system work on a large scale…like in a country the size of the US? Would it be better to put more emphasis on the state rather than the federal government? Let the federal government do the job I believe it was originally intended for…national security and settling disputes between the states? (the republican in me thinks so, but what do I know!)

I doubt any exists, though I think elements of it exist here and there. Without being all that well-informed, I would guess that some place like Denmark likely has the best situation for the truly needy; the ones who can’t help themselves. I would guess that the Chilean privatization of “social security” (thus reducing government dependence for that at least) is an example of another element. I would guess that the U.S. is probably close when it comes to the ability of an individual to own and operate a farm or business without undue interference. When it comes to excessive “wage dependence” I don’t know that any country would score well. When it comes to avoidance of excessive consumerism, likely Japan would be a fair example. With its high savings rate, obviously people aren’t consuming to the max, unlike in the U.S. where people borrow to consume. When it comes to legal security of ownership, the U.S. would score well (excessive litigation notwithstanding, but that’s indirect). When it comes to the right of parents to form their children, some states in the U.S. would fare well, but the media make it excessively challenging.

When it comes to excessive taxation, I don’t know that any substantial country fares well.

I guess there are the “mini states” like Lichtenstein, where I guess people live pretty well and pay no taxes at all. But that’s not a true economy.

Guess I have to throw my hands up, my friend. Maybe somebody else has better answers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s true, but that’s also why those systems always fail. Communism and socialism are not sustainable.

Yes – but in setting themselves up and trying to sustain themselves, they kill people in wholesale lots, and when they fall, it takes generations for those who survived the dictatorship to achieve a stable and prosperous country.

Zbignew Brzinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor, was right when he said, “Communism is the greatest calamity ever to overtake the human race.”

 

[drafdog]

The only economic system peculiar to the Catholic Church and approved by it is the limited form of communism practiced by religious orders. Unfortunately the only way to have communism work is to engage in it for reasons outside strictly economic reasons. It must have the voluntary acceptance of all members of the society. Communism works; we know that from the success of religious communities. We can’t make it work for society at large; we know that from the difficulties experienced by members of those same religious communities.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Catholic Church has condemned Communism.

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. 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.” 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.

 

[jimmy]

A libertarian economic system - but combined with authoritarian moral laws.

You probably mean ‘authoritative moral laws’.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You probably mean ‘authoritative moral laws’.

Don’t be too sure.

 

[jimmy]

In the case of public land (as in Alaska), the royalty already goes to the government. Alaska chose to dole it out to the citizenry. In other states, citizens often own the mineral rights.

So what do you propose? That the government own land it already owns? Or that the government take what it does not own?

The question is who owns the land? Is it just that one man or group of men own all the natural resources of a country while the rest of the country is starving? Even though they have control of them ,can they legitimately claim to own these resources? I have this feeling that a lot of libertarians have this idea that if I get control of a piece of land then it is mine and no one has a right to touch it. Ultimately though, it is not mine. No group of people has the right to claim all the resources of a country as their own. It belongs to the people(I don’t mean the govt., I mean each person comming together). People like to speak of capitalism as if it is the word of God and it is infallible. The fact though is that it is simply a system in which we have chosen to live. It is not without its own problems. I have this feeling that many conservatives would be fine with people living as they did in the lower east side of NYC in the late 19th century. Conservatives would say it is part of the free market and if the people are living in their feces in NYC then they should do something about it, after all Ben Franklin didn’t think we should bail the poor out because it will only make them dependant. This is the attitude I see from a lot of conservatives.

 

[jimmy]

Don’t be too sure.

I am trying to assume the best. I might be wrong though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The question is who owns the land?

The man who worked and slaved, and invested and earned the money to buy it and who holds the deed.

Is it just that one man or group of men own all the natural resources of a country while the rest of the country is starving?

All the people who don’t own land in the United States are starving?

Even though they have control of them ,can they legitimately claim to own these resources?

Can you legitimately claim to own your house, your car, your bank account, and your clean underwear?

I have this feeling that a lot of libertarians have this idea that if I get control of a piece of land then it is mine and no one has a right to touch it.

So someone has a right to take your house, your car, your bank account, and your clean underwear?

Ultimately though, it is not mine.

Okay – send me the deed to your house, the title to your car, the contents of your bank account and your credit card. (You can keep your clean underwear.)

No group of people has the right to claim all the resources of a country as their own. It belongs to the people(I don’t mean the govt., I mean each person).

That’s been tried in Africa recently – do you recall how it turned out?

People like to speak of capitalism as if it is the word of God and that it is infallible.

As opposed to being the word of cockamamie “theorists” who are infallible?

Despite the fact that following their ideas has plunged one country after another into even greater poverty?

The fact though is that it is simply a system in which we have chosen to live. It is not without its own problems. I have this feeling that many conservatives would be fine with people living as they did in the lower east side of NYC in the late 19th century. Conservatives would say it is part of the free market and if the people are living in their feces in NYC then they should do something about it, after all Ben Franklin didn’t think we should bail the poor out because it will only make them dependant. This is the attitude I see from a lot of conservatives.

Ah, the old “They really don’t think or act that way, but I pretend they want to, and that makes them guilty” ploy.

 

[jimmy]

All the people who don’t own land in the United States are starving?

You were responding to a post about South America so that was the area that was in my mind.

Can you legitimately claim to own your house, your car, your bank account, and your clean underwear?

When I die it won’t be mine any more so no I can’t in an ultimate way. What each person can ultimately claim as his own is not something physical outside himself. What he can claim is freedom. He can claim the freedom to love God. I like the freedoms which our country gives us. I like the idea that I have a secure home and I have the money to live on. But ultimately these are not divine rights but civil(simply look at the fact that the concept of money is a human concept) and consequently I have no right to suck up as much land as possible if others need that land. Ultimately the idea of charity goes before my civil right to own property(property ownership is not a divine right either considering the fact that the whole concept is a human concept).

So someone has a right to take your house, your car, your bank account, and your clean underwear?

No, I never said that. But no one has the right to claim all the resources of a country, no matter how much he slaved and paid for them. The land is not an object for each individuals desires for riches, it is meant to live off of. And every single person has a need to eat and a need for a roof to live under.

You are taking my statements in a direction that I am not taking them. You seem to think that just because I can say that I have no ultimate claim -no divine right - on land that means that others can claim what I have. That is a false conception.

That’s been tried in Africa recently – do you recall how it turned out?

Africa is screwed up and it represents exactly the form of property ownership which you support. The warlords control all the land and resources. You seem to think that if someone can make a claim on the land then it is automatically theirs. The warlords have made their claims.

As opposed to being the word of cockamamie “theorists” who are infallible?

Despite the fact that following their ideas has plunged one country after another into even greater poverty?

I assume you are refering to socialists. I am not a socialist and I have never read anything by any socialist. But I also don’t depict life in this dialectical manner in which the capitalists are the good guys and the socialists are the bad guys. Ultimately, unbridalled capitalism and socialism are both evil. And the Church has specifically said this. The Church does not support capitalism.

Ah, the old “They really don’t think or act that way, but I pretend they want to, and that makes them guilty” ploy.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

My point is that it seems like conservatives are ultimately the exact same thing as liberals, individualists. All that matters is how they can get more money and more land. If someone does not have money to support themselves then that is their own problem and there is no reason why I should help them.

I tend to be a libertarian. I think people should take what they need instead of trying to gain as much power as possible. But I also see Christ’s call to charity. We are not called to gather as much money and land as we can while others are starving.

If you can convince me that my views are erroneous then I am willing to change them. I have gone through many changes in my views.

 

[jimmy]

The Catholic Church has condemned Communism.
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. 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.” 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.

This quote from the Catechism shows my point. Capitalism, just like socialism or communism, is condemned by the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You were responding to a post about South America so that was the area that was in my mind.

And I was responding to the country that has the best track record in protecting individual property rights. Note that people here who do not own land are not starving. Ergo, it is not land ownership that is the fundamental problem.

When I die it won’t be mine any more so no I can’t in an ultimate way. What each person can ultimately claim as his own is not something physical outside himself.

But while you live, no one has the right to confiscate your property in the name of some cockamamie socialist agenda.

What he can claim is freedom.

When they take his property, they take his freedom.

He can claim the freedom to love God. I like the freedoms which our country gives us.

The country doesn’t “give” them to us, we earn them.

I like the idea that I have a secure home and I have the money to live on.

And you have to earn that.

But ultimately these are not divine rights but civil(simply look at the fact that the concept of money is a human concept) and consequently I have no right to suck up as much land as possible if others need that land.

So you have the right to take what others earned by hard work, scrimping and sacrifice?

Ultimately the idea of charity goes before my civil right to own property(property ownership is not a divine right either considering the fact that the whole concept is a human concept).

Then why discuss it at all? The fact is, where property is not respected, neither are any other rights.

No, I never said that. But no one has the right to claim all the resources of a country, no matter how much he slaved and paid for them.

So how does one who did not slave and pay for the land have a right to claim all the resources of a country?

The land is not an object for each individuals desires for riches, it is meant to live off of. And every single person has a need to eat and a need for a roof to live under.a

Visit those nations which have confiscated the land in the name of socialism, and see how well they life.

You are taking my statements in a direction that I am not taking them. You seem to think that just because I can say that I have no ultimate claim -no divine right - on land that means that others can claim what I have. That is a false conception.

How is it false? Unless you have some personal exemption from the principle that property belongs to everyone.

Africa is screwed up and it represents exactly the form of property ownership which you support.

Not at all. It used to represent that form of property ownership, but that was abolished in many countries – resulting in disaster.

The warlords control all the land and resources. You seem to think that if someone can make a claim on the land then it is automatically theirs. The warlords have made their claims.

Well, duh!

Who do you think will control the land and government under the system you propose?

I assume you are refering to socialists. I am not a socialist and I have never read anything by any socialist.

If you had, you’d recognize what a radically socialist proposal you are supporting.

But I also don’t depict life in this dialectical manner in which the capitalists are the good guys and the socialists are the bad guys.

Dialectical argument is the signature of Communism. It is the basis of Marx’ thinking.

Ultimately, unbridalled capitalism and socialism are both evil. And the Church has specifically said this. The Church does not support capitalism.

Church does support capitalism. But it cautions we should not lose sight of our duties to care for our fellow man.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

Read your next comment:

My point is that it seems like conservatives are ultimately the exact same thing as liberals, individualists. All that matters is how they can get more money and more land. If someone does not have money to support themselves then that is their own problem and there is no reason why I should help them.

In other words, that’s your stereotype of them. You paint them that way, based on your ideology.

I tend to be a libertarian. I think people should take what they need instead of trying to gain as much power as possible. But I also see Christ’s call to charity. We are not called to gather as much money and land as we can while others are starving.

Where did Christ call for Communism?

If you can convince me that my views are erroneous then I am willing to change them. I have gone through many changes in my views.

Take a trip to Africa. Before you go, study what those countries were like 50 years ago and note the difference.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This quote from the Catechism shows my point. Capitalism, just like socialism or communism, is condemned by the Church.

Let’s just parse that paragraph:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

That seems pretty plain. Note that every communist nation has become a totalitarian dictatorship. Every one.

And there is a reason for this – to confiscate property, the state must be powerful, all powerful. And as Lord Action said, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

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.

Absolutely – all societies must place a high value on individuals, and not exploit them.

Capitalism can live up to this standard, Communism cannot.

Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds;

And it fails to deliver the goods.

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.”

Which is why we Catholics in capitalist countries stress charity and social justice.

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.

And that’s exactly what we do – and indeed, we are to be commended for doing it.

Now, we have two models here – regulated capitalism, tempered with Christian values, and Communism, which is never tempered by anything other than the desires of the dictator and his supporter.

Which would be best for a developing nation?

 

[jimmy]

So how does one who did not slave and pay for the land have a right to claim all the resources of a country?

Considering this statement it sounds like you would support the pre-revolutionary Russian form of land ownership in which a lord owned the land and they had many slaves on it that basically belonged to the land. This is where the concept came from for the book Dead Souls by Gogol. The main character went around to land owners and bought the dead souls of their slaves so that he could eventually by land.

How is it false? Unless you have some personal exemption from the principle that property belongs to everyone.

Because no one has an ultimate, divine right to the land.

Who do you think will control the land and government under the system you propose?

Maybe my views are not completely practical because people are fallen. I have thought about that before and it has made me hesitant to even speak of them.

So how does one who did not slave and pay for the land have a right to claim all the resources of a country?

I never said they do. But neither does a few who do slave for it. The evil man is willing to work for land just as much as the good man. If a few people get all the benifit but the vast majority of those who live on the land(Again, I am not thinking of the US) do not benifit then how is that just? As I said before, it is kind of like the 19th century Russian form of land ownership in which there is a landlord who owns the land and then he has hundreds of slaves who live on the land and work the land while the land owner gets all the benifit. Maybe the Russian revolution was evil but that doesn’t make the pre-revolutionary way of life just.

In other words, that’s your stereotype of them. You paint them that way, based on your ideology.

My ideology is Christianity and I try to make it affect every aspect of my views. I don’t have a political ideology that is seperate from my views as a Christian.

Everyone has their own ideology that affects their perceptions of the world. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact that is what we are all presenting to eachother.

Yes, that is my perception of the conservatives. But my perception is based on their statements. I recognize that it is my subjective perception and that it is not objective and that is why I used the phrase ‘it seems’. But the fact is that our perceptions are subjective. I can sit here and read your posts and get somewhat of an idea of what you think but I don’t know your perspective and the thoughts that are going through your mind as you type them so I can’t get an exact idea of what you believe.

Where did Christ call for Communism?

Christ also never called for capitalism. Money was not His focus. He said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Money means nothing to Christ. But He does say to give to the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick.

Just to get an idea of what I believe. I am a libertarian. I think that people should only take what they need and they should share with those who are in need. I don’t like big govt. I don’t like socialized medicare or any other socialized project. Instead I like personal charity. I actually tend to agree with the conservatives on almost every issue. The problem is that it seems like they have no compassion. It seems as I said that they are individualists. They have principles that can’t be adjusted no matter what questions come to the table. I don’t watch the news on tv and never have been into it. Once in a while I might watch Glenn Beck. I listen to talk radio(Glenn Beck, and sometimes Jim Quinn, Savage, and Rush) but am getting a little sick of it. And sometimes I read the news on msn.com. So my views basically come from a conservative perspective with a little bit of a reaction from a theological perspective over the last several months. If I saw them promoting charity to any degree I could agree with their political views 100% because I already see what they are saying. But they all have a cynical view of those who are poor or sick or who are affected by whatever weakness. They look at the poor man as if he is a swindler and is too lazy to work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Considering this statement it sounds like you would support the pre-revolutionary Russian form of land ownership in which a lord owned the land and they had many slaves on it that basically belonged to the land.

Would it be fair to say your statemenst sound like the post-revolutionary Russian form of land ownership? And support for the means used to achieve it?

Because no one has an ultimate, divine right to the land.

So why do you claim the right to decide who owns it?

Maybe my views are not completely practical because people are fallen. I have thought about that before and it has made me hesitant to even speak of them.

You should have trusted your instincts there.

I never said they do. But neither does a few who do slave for it. The evil man is willing to work for land just as much as the good man.

On the other hand, the evil man is willing to steal someone’s property, and the good man is not.

If a few people get all the benifit but the vast majority of those who live on the land(Again, I am not thinking of the US) do not benifit then how is that just? As I said before, it is kind of like the 19th century Russian form of land ownership in which there is a landlord who owns the land and then he has hundreds of slaves who live on the land and work the land while the land owner gets all the benifit. Maybe the Russian revolution was evil but that doesn’t make the pre-revolutionary way of life just.

But it does make following the post-revolutionary approach dead wrong. Santana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.

Go study the Collectivisation Famine in Russia, the methods used in Red China, and other examples where this idea of yours was put into practice.

My ideology is Christianity and I try to make it affect every aspect of my views. I don’t have a political ideology that is seperate from my views as a Christian.

Lenin had a name for people who followed the Communist line but were not card-carrying communsts

Everyone has their own ideology that affects their perceptions of the world. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact that is what we are all presenting to eachother.

Ah, the old Post-Modernism theory – one position is as good as another, so there is no right and wrong.

Yes, that is my perception of the conservatives. But my perception is based on their statements.

No, your perception is based on your prejudice – you pick statements you don’t like and ascribe them to people you think are different from you.

I recognize that it is my subjective perception and that it is not objective and that is why I used the phrase ‘it seems’.

Which is different from a direct accusation only in that it is weasle-worded.

But the fact is that our perceptions are subjective. I can sit here and read your posts and get somewhat of an idea of what you think but I don’t know your perspective and the thoughts that are going through your mind as you type them so I can’t get an exact idea of what you believe.

Then be careful of ascribing ideas to people who don’t hold them.

Christ also never called for capitalism. Money was not His focus. He said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Money means nothing to Christ. But He does say to give to the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick.

Bingo! Christ did not endorse an economic system – let alone tell the government to confiscate land – probably because He knew that would simply intensify the problems, not solve them.

Just to get an idea of what I believe. I am a libertarian. I think that people should only take what they need and they should share with those who are in need. I don’t like big govt.

Yet you are pushing the ultimate in Big Government, one big enough and powerful enough to take property.

I don’t like socialized medicare or any other socialized project. Instead I like personal charity. I actually tend to agree with the conservatives on almost every issue. The problem is that it seems like they have no compassion.

I think that is your pre-conceived notions kicking in again – if you follow these threads, you will see many conservative solutions to many problems – from True Choice in schools to Medical Savings Accounts, to privatizing our retirement savings.

It seems as I said that they are individualists. They have principles that can’t be adjusted no matter what questions come to the table. I don’t watch the news on tv and never have been into it. Once in a while I might watch Glenn Beck. I listen to talk radio(Glenn Beck, and sometimes Jim Quinn, Savage, and Rush) but am getting a little sick of it. And sometimes I read the news on msn.com. So my views basically come from a conservative perspective with a little bit of a reaction from a theological perspective over the last several months. If I saw them promoting charity to any degree I could agree with their political views 100% because I already see what they are saying. But they all have a cynical view of those who are poor or sick or who are affected by whatever weakness. They look at the poor man as if he is a swindler and is too lazy to work.

Let me see – you think radio entertainers speak for the conservatives? Just who elected these radio and TV personalities to speak for anyone but themselves?

 

[jimmy]

Let’s just parse that paragraph:

That seems pretty plain. Note that every communist nation has become a totalitarian dictatorship. Every one.

I don’t disagree. I don’t support communism so I have no problem with this assertion.

And there is a reason for this – to confiscate property, the state must be powerful, all powerful. And as Lord Action said, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 Absolutely -- all societies must place a high value on individuals, and not exploit them.

Capitalism can live up to this standard, Communism cannot.

How is Capitalism living up to the standard? The US doesn’t value the human person, otherwise there would be no debate over abortion, human cloning, stemcell research and etc.

And it fails to deliver the goods.

It is impersonal, that is what the point of that sentence was. Goods have nothing to do with it. It breaks down the communication between persons.

And that’s exactly what we do – and indeed, we are to be commended for doing it.

Now, we have two models here – regulated capitalism, tempered with Christian values, and Communism, which is never tempered by anything other than the desires of the dictator and his supporter.

Which would be best for a developing nation?

The 19th century American economy was capitalism too. Would you say that the way people were living in the lower east side of NYC was just? Capitalism must be regulated.

The Church doesn’t oppose every aspect of communism or socialism. The Church recognizes that there are good aspects of it. What they reject is the atheistic and totalitarian tendencies. And likewise they do not teach capitalism as if it is good. They accept that there are some good aspects to it but there are also problems as there are with socialism.

 

[jimmy]

Would it be fair to say your statemenst sound like the post-revolutionary Russian form of land ownership? And support for the means used to achieve it?

No it wouldn’t. And I assume you don’t like the pre-revolutionary form either but you have already accused me of basically being a socialist so if your words sound like the pre-revolutionary Russians it makes sense that you might support that view.

So why do you claim the right to decide who owns it?

I am not claiming any right. You are putting words in my mouth.

You should have trusted your instincts there.

Maybe,

On the other hand, the evil man is willing to steal someone’s property, and the good man is not.

True.

But it does make following the post-revolutionary approach dead wrong. Santana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.

Go study the Collectivisation Famine in Russia, the methods used in Red China, and other examples where this idea of yours was put into practice.

My views were neither put into practice in Russia nor in China. You are projecting your ideas onto myself. If you are going to do this it is reasonable for me to say you are a pure individualist as I accused the conservatives of before. We can both make extreme statements about eachother.

Ah, the old Post-Modernism theory – one position is as good as another, so there is no right and wrong.

Now you are getting really annoying when you try to twist my words. Ok, I have no qualms about calling you an individualist who hates the poor now that you are accusing me of relativism. If you want this discussion to go anywhere then you should stop putting words into my mouth.

No, your perception is based on your prejudice – you pick statements you don’t like and ascribe them to people you think are different from you.

And your views are based on your prejudices.

Which is different from a direct accusation only in that it is weasle-worded.

Every statement you make you sound more like a jerk and you get a little more offensive.

Yet you are pushing the ultimate in Big Government, one big enough and powerful enough to take property.

No I am not. I never said the govt. had anything to do with it. In fact I denied that govt. has anything to do with it. Read the first post of mine on the thread. You are continuing to put words into my mouth that I have denied.

This thread ceased to be interesting with this post. You have accused me of many things that are offensive and it is no longer fun to discuss it.