Can we Create an America that can Lead the World - Page 17

Ben Kenobi · February 14, 2003, 18:47

Quote:

go get a high school textbook on US history obiwan.

DuncanK

Do you really want me to do your research for you?

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 18:48

Ah, yes. That would make the conversation much more productive.

Hold on. I'll get a web page.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 18:49

'zazel, but it IS true. Duncan has stated time and time again that if the outcomes are unequal, then it is unjust. At least half a dozen times in this thread.

And, your example with the saw in the neighborhood needs clarification then:

1) Who goes to buy said saw?
2) Where is the saw kept? Is it kept in a central location, or at the house of the last person to use it?
3) What sanctions are there against me if I choose to go out and buy my own saw? (and there would have to be sanctions of some kind, since I am forbidden to own the means of production exclusively)
4) How would you know if I did such a thing as number 3, above? Periodic house to house check by the PolitPolice?

-=Vel=-

Az · February 14, 2003, 19:00

Quote:

1) Who goes to buy said saw?
2) Where is the saw kept? Is it kept in a central location, or at the house of the last person to use it?
3) What sanctions are there against me if I choose to go out and buy my own saw? (and there would have to be sanctions of some kind, since I am forbidden to own the means of production exclusively)
4) How would you know if I did such a thing as number 3, above? Periodic house to house check by the PolitPolice?

1) The Local council member in charge.
2) In the council warehouse.
3) You wouldn't actually be able to buy it, since it's not available on free sell.
4) read 3.

This is a metaphore, obviously, I don't mind people having saws, I think they should be on free sell, but I think that most people don't really need them, and therefore, all those sawsgo to waste.

But since my concern is happiness, I think that the happiness created by the fact that many people own saws is greater than the loss of happiness because production was wasted on a product that wouldn't be put to use much, and will rust away.

It depends on the exact case really.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 19:09

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abuk...th_4.html#pred

Obiwan,

Look at this if you want. It's Max Weber. You might say he's left wing. He was for his time, but not for today. He talks about predestination and the protestant work ethic.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
This is a metaphore, obviously, I don't mind people having saws, I think they should be on free sell, but I think that most people don't really need them, and therefore, all those sawsgo to waste.

Excellent point on the inefficiencies of capitalism. new idea for this thread. That's great. keep it coming we are almost to 500.

Ben Kenobi · February 14, 2003, 19:51

DuncanK,
Regarding predestination:

Not all Protestants are Calvinists. Your point only deals with the Calvinists in general and the Puritans in particular.

Quote:

We cannot pass it by, and since to-day it can no longer be assumed as known to all educated men, we can best learn its content from the authoritative words of the Westminster Confession of 1647, which in this regard is simply repeated by both Independent and Baptist creeds.

BTW Baptist churches today don't teach predestination.

Citing the creeds he cites:

"Chapter IX (of Free Will), No. 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. So that a natural man, being altogether averse from that Good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."

No problem here. Salvation by Grace through Faith.

"No. 5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto, and all to the praise of His glorious grace."

Again, if one believes that God has foreknowledge, he must know who is among the elect or not.

"Chapter X (of Effectual Calling), No. 1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by His word and spirit (out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature) . . . taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good...."

Again, same as before. Grace is a gift from God that cannot be earned by man through works.

"Chapter III (of God's Eternal Decree), No. 3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."

This last point is the hinge of your case. Assuming this is true, how does man know who is to be saved, and who is not? How does the church know that someone has been foreordained to Hell?

It does not necessarily follow from this that salvation cannot be obtained outside of the church, because God did save those before the church was even formed.

Nor does it follow that believers are to seperate themselves from the world around them, that they are not to love their fellow man.

Finally, this is an old confession, 1647. How many Protestant churches still accede to the terms outlined?

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 20:32

Obiwan,

I think what you are missing is that capitalism was created and justified with Puritan eithcs. I'm not saying that this is taught in church anymore, or that it is any official line of any Protestant church.

Predestination and the Puritan ethic are the religious justification of capitalism. That is that God pleases those who are more godly. And that owners of capital own capital because they have been chosen by God to own capital. And that the propertyless masses have a duty to work hard and to not aspire to own property because its there duty to work. When capitalism started to replace feudalism it had to be justified. Those with interests in the old feudal society did not just let their power slip away into the hands of capitalists. The capitalists needed justification for obtaining their new power.

As society became more secular these justifications for capitalism didn't just cease to exist in an instant and new justifications did not just spring up out of nowhere. These religious justifications for capitalism gradually changed into secular justifications. That is what I mean when I say that the way we justify capitalism today has very much to do with how it was justified in its origins.

Ben Kenobi · February 14, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

And that owners of capital own capital because they have been chosen by God to own capital.

People use 'religion' to justify many things, including things not taught by the religion.

Consider the parable of the rich man, who followed God and his commandments. Jesus insisted that the rich man sell his possessions, give the money to the poor, and to follow him. This is hardly the response of capitalism. The rich man in this case loved his wealth and possessions more than he did God. This is one of the fundamental conflicts between Christianity and capitalism, the idea that wealth and prosperity are meaningless unless devoted to proper aims.

The same is with capital. A person may be born into a rich family, but Christians will say this is meaningless unless he uses the gifts he has been given to do good. 'Those who have been given much, much more is expected. '

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 20:54

Good point. I think that Jim Jones and other cult leaders have twisted the Bible to mean that their followers must give all of their worldly posessions to the Church.

Iron Chancellor · February 14, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I don't know if protestantism is the same in Canada? I don't know any Bible verses off hand. It's a general believe that people are poor because they are lazy, and being lazy is a sin.

I'm not an expert in this area. But the fact is well known with historians.

Well, actually, Jesus actually states several times that many poor people are poor because of accidents and things beyond their control and should be cared for.
Yes, laziness is a sin, but in the sense that you are dragging on other people, forcing them to care for you and not using the body you were given, in essence wasting a gift from God.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
Well, actually, Jesus actually states several times that many poor people are poor because of accidents and things beyond their control and should be cared for.
Yes, laziness is a sin, but in the sense that you are dragging on other people, forcing them to care for you and not using the body you were given, in essence wasting a gift from God.

And from what you've told me about your beliefs in capitalism this means poor people in general, since only a lazy person would be poor. According to you that is.

LoneWolf · February 15, 2003, 03:08

Why does the world expect us to lead them? What about France, for example? Or Zambia?

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 03:45

France is more hated than we are. I think. Well, maybe not this year.

MRT144 · February 15, 2003, 03:55

lead the world on the highway to hell

Az · February 15, 2003, 06:53

isn't that an AC/DC song or something?

MRT144 · February 15, 2003, 07:00

i love ac/dc and yes it is, and thats where the US is leading us

Az · February 15, 2003, 07:16

Def Leppard rulz maaaaan.

not.

MRT144 · February 15, 2003, 08:14

def leppard had a one armed drummer...

Alexander's Horse · February 15, 2003, 10:47

well this thread is rooted, just like US leadership at the moment.

Boris Godunov · February 15, 2003, 11:18

I'm taking the 500th post in hopes of shutting this discussion up.

Willem · February 15, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Americans believe in classism and elitism. That's the bad part about indivildualism. Of course there is a good part about individualism. That is taking initiative etc.... I wasn't talking about that. That exists in all cultures.

They don't believe in either, they're just a byproduct of their system.

Willem · February 15, 2003, 12:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Why is it BS. Because you have gone on and on about how people work to advance in society and you just told me that your son should be in elite class while my son should be in working class because of who their parents were. If you don't see the Bullshit there only your political bias and your dollars are keeping you from seeing reality.

Why do automatically presume that people who pass on their wealth to their children become elite? Hell, when my Dad died, my inheritance was his old clothes. Oh yeah, I'm an elite of my society now! Woo hoo!

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

They don't believe in either, they're just a byproduct of their system.

Then why would they support a class system?

Willem · February 15, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

How many lines of your decendants should be able to exploit the labor of my decendants? When does it become classism?

Your answer is, its already classism.

No, it's only classism if the general population has no opportunity of working their way up into the "elite" strata of society, when the socail lines are rigidly fixed. Just because someone isn't born into money in a capitalist system, doesn't mean that he/she can't aspire and attain as large a fortune as the "bluebloood" who's a product of several generations of money.

Az · February 15, 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Hell, when my Dad died, my inheritance was his old clothes. Oh yeah, I'm an elite of my society now! Woo hoo!

Well if that is your definiton of 'wealth'...

Willem · February 15, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I've already seen all this, and I've already answered all these questions.

Capitalism results in different classes of people. Which class you are born into is largly determined by which class your parents were in. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

But even people whose parents are poor have a chance at a better life for themselves, they're social status at birth doesn't hinder them from aspiring to become more. Yes they might have to work harder than their wealthy counterparts, but it'd not an impossibilty. It might even give them an advantage since they're not about to take money for granted, as someone wealthier might, and so could make better decisions as to how to use it.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 12:31

Sadly, if ideas were not recycled in this thread it would have much shorter and I'm sure more people would have participated in it.

DinoDoc · February 15, 2003, 12:39

Where the hell is Ming?!?!

CASE CLOSED!

Iron Chancellor · February 15, 2003, 12:42

Also, poor people who work their way up get book deals from major publishers which become best sellers. Think Angela's Ashes. (I'm being cynical, but it is true)

IF America had a rigid caste system
IF there was no way to work one's way up
IF America's elite gave the poor no social programs
THEN America would be a cold-hearted and ruthless culture, but all three of those stand.