sonofccn wrote:And I in turn would call only "free market capitalism" Capitalism. To me "Socialistic capitalism" or Crony capitalism is just another source of collusion with the goverment.
And seeing what is happening here, and what is happening in the US, little governmental control over capitalists is exactly what we need. Except that government will have to find a way to stop being controlled by capitalists before that.
I really don't see what you mean. Capitalism rewards incentive and work and does not by design reward unethical behavior and indeed places moderation on such vices. Grind up old widows for cat food and people buy other products, pay your wage slaves pennies and they go down the street to a competitor who pays quarters.
Except that all capitalists want only one thing – to get as much profit as possible. That means lowering wages while increasing prices, as well as reducing number of workers while forcing them to work harder. And they can't complain, beacouse they know there are 5 people on the street who can take their place. So no, your logic doesn't work.
But in addition Capitalism, unlike collectivism, does not require virtue on behalf of its particpants. The Baker may be an immoral cad who bakes bread for his own selfish purposes but the town still has fresh bread each and every morning, the same for the cobbler, the same for the wine maker.
Except when he sells them shitty bread, and they can't do anything beacouse either there is no other baker, or all other bakers are same.
But problem in capitalism is that it sells you shitty product, and lies to you about it. Products are being sold in Europe and US several times more expensive than they should be given costs of their production, even when you account for all taxes and everything. Yet workers get only enough so as not to drop dead. For example, Nike (also Adidas, Puma or any other multinational shoe-making corporation) pays its workers only few cents per hour (all of its factories are abroad, in Indonesia, China, etc.).. In that one hour, worker can make 2 to 4 pairs of shoes, which are then sold in the US and Europe at hundred dollars per pair
at least. And given that average pay is much less than what is required to secure most basic of needs for entire family, entire family is forced to work. Meaning that children can't get education, and are forced to live in same shithole and same conditions as their parents – so will be their children, children of those children, and so on. Until something changes. When or how will that happen, only God knows.
Granted, I probably used wrong terms – I'm actually talking about corporatism, but corporatism is nothing more than unregulated capitalism; capitalism in its second purest form (aside from slave societies of old).
I honestly do not see why I should pay for someone else. I believe in paying for services rendered, I don't mind roads or that there is a military protecting me from threats both abroad and domestic ect, but I am not indebted to pay for someone else's problem. We are all Freemen, and women, not children and not wards.
Then why you don't go to jungle and live on your own?
Society is built around people helping each other. Granted, money is good way of ensuring that people don't take too much (what do you think would happen if everything was
free? It would probably turn into free-for-all. But some basic needs, like health care and absolute minimum of food and water (public kitchens), should be made free. (But not completely free – person should have right on, in case of hospitals, free treatment and certain number of medical examinations per year, but any extra examinations or non-prescribed drugs should be paid for).
Secondly I believe people use their own resources far more wisely and with caution then they exploit "Free" services which prompts needless waste. And as extension buisness perform better when they have a stake in the game unlike public institutions which win or loss come out ahead.
True. Which is why I think there should be limits to free services, but not that they should be removed entirely (read above). And as for public institutions... Croatian shipbuilding industry was one of strongest in the world,
until privatization happened.
Thirdly it is of my opinion private enterprises are a more efficent use of funds then public. From the US postal service to the public school system such institutions are massive wastes of tax payer dollars with subpar results.
Simply not true. Corporations do anything to make profit.
http://themistoclesletters.blogspot.com ... oggle.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/mili ... /0/weapsb1
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,187737,00.html
F-22 was
10 years late. Reason? LM drawn out development in order to keep money pipe open. Also, some sources I have found show that Pentagon's budget is mainly taken up by money required to pay corporations – which then do their job only partially, and charge Pentagon far more than their job would be worth had they done it as they told they'll do it. Unfortunately, I can't find it.
Public schools have subpar results beacouse they are underfunded compared to private ones.
It rewards effort and work,
... as well as lies, theft and few other things.
Many "high-tech" innovations which don't work.
Except that there were many things which did work, and only needed some perfecting. Like wireless energy transfer. Which wasn't employed beacouse Morgan decided it wasn't economical – Tesla's chinging current has just started making profit. However, that is one of rare examples where capitalism might have done good – given controversy over cellphones, I'm not sure how healthy that kind of power transfer would have been. He also made a way to transfer power throught the ground. Nonprofitable, Morgan said.
Your choice, assuming it was pratical you still have the same problem. Someone has to either provide you hydrogen or the power for you to manufacture your own. Either way you need a Corporation.
Which would preferably be owned by state. But no independant corporations want to research it, beacouse they are making too much money out of petrol.
Again it is your choice. Over all I find horses smelly, filthy animals and much prefer a car with longer range, lesser maintnence and is cleaner, cars don't drop "leavings" in the city street, than a four legged creature.
Car is also smelly, filthy "animal" whose "shit" has long-term damage on health of people, and only gives people worries. Actually, between horses and cars, bicycles would be best choice.
That is your opinion I suppose and you are entitled to it. I however choose to look at it as budding Capitalists making the initial inroads for a more prosperous future they'd never have without those factories paying them far more than they could make without said factories. At which point we scam them with cheap products from some other two bit sink hole and the cycle begans anew. :)
I saw some interviews. These people were far happier and richer when they were living from their land; but government, in order to make foreign corporations come there, took the land from them and forced them to work for corporations.
Well that certainly isn't a condemation of Capitalism for making its people productive, better then squashing it like the Soviets, and I would say that is a case for spreading it to those other blighted parts of the globe so they too can grow more food then they could possibly eat.
So they can grow more food? They can't grow more food precisely due to these same corporations, beacouse they work non-stop to earn barely enough to feed themselves. And their corporate overlords are only concerned about profit. Imperialism, colonialism and slavery in their newest outfits.
Admiral Breetai wrote:the mere fact that socialism and communism have historically provided a base for such darker aspects of human desire..to go absolutely ape shit and run wild will also be similarly ignored
And corporatism did not? Hitler was corporatist, and was supplied by Western corporations even throught all of WW2 (by Ford, for example). They even paid for his election campaign.
with the intent to make a profit of course
Making profit isn't problem. Problemis when making profit by any means necessary becomes all that matters.
it does exist but you'll find it's when the Capitalist get in bed with the Governments and usually you'll find some paper socialist mouth piece blaring while reaping the benefits
In West, corporations control governments. In East, depends.
if it wasn't for the US and it's evil privatized food and grain cartels North Korea would have recently suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties from starvation - this is as recent as six months ago
Add China to the list. But I doubt that US would have done any worse in socialistic system (socialism only has one lack – it fails to take human stupidity into account. That's why Communism was such faliure. But Scandinav countries, Australia and Canada re socialistic countries, proving that it can work).
any attempt by the government to stop this should be met by violent and subversive means
Government does what corporations tell it to do.
this made me laugh though they probably have more to fear of me than you..I'm of the opinion that the state should one day be abolished entirely
And open way for unchecked destruction by capitalists of everything that defines humans as something other than animals?
mojo wrote:and yet 90% claim to believe in the christian god and that they will go to heaven. THROUGH WORKS, for fuck's sake. that they will go to heaven because they are a good person, rather than through the sacrifice of christ, which if you think about it, is fucking hilarious considering that belief in entering heaven through works rather than through the blood of christ shows an ABSOLUTE lack of knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the religion.
If you don't want work, then you don't have to eat and you won't go to the heaven. But problem is now that so many people
want to work, but can't.
General Donner wrote:How can we be certain that good atheists are not going to Hell? Theologically speaking, that appears rather shaky. I might point to such passages as Revelation 21:8 to the contrary.
You are (or so I believe, at least) correct that a true believer will attempt to refrain from every kind of sin. In the Bible Paul writes to the Romans that they shouldn't continue in sin, even though they're under grace. (Especially because of that, in fact.) But that's only a natural consequence of true faith, as you also write. Faith produces good works. The works themselves aren't worth anything with regards to salvation, however, though they do make life on this Earth a little better.
Let's just say that it seems illogical to me. As it is stated in Old Testament, "God looks what is in the heart". One of main points of Bible is that all that is good comes from God; therefore, if you do good things, beacouse you want to help people, that means that you have accepted God in some way – even thought you might continue to believe that there is no God. And if you have accepted God, you have accepted salvation. It is far easier if you believe in God, beacouse it gives you strong support; but it's not required not to end up in a (state of) Hell.
Now, faith certainly does count for something. But I don't believe that "no faith = hell". That simply doesn't fit. Sinners who refuse to repent for their sins are actively separating themselves from God; and as such, cannot expect any mercy. But atheists who do good are acknowledging God, in heart, if not in mind.
I read the exact opposite in the passage. Atheists, in modern society, are overwhelmingly people who haveknowingly rejected Christ -- I really don't think I'm exaggerating if I say, you would've had to have lived your whole life under a rock to be unaware of Christianity, at least in the Western world. Thus they know full well what God expects of us, yet fail to believe in it. Logically, then -- as you also conclude -- they will be more heavily punished than, say, tribesmen in Africa who never heard God's Word.
That they would. But my point still stands. These tribesmen never heard about God, and so never had any chance to embrace him. Atheists are being told about God, but they don't believe, beacouse they can't see, can't touch. But at least they are honest about it; besides, their atheism is partially consequence of life they had – you don't come to choose your parents. But false Christians pretend to accept God and then throw Him away – meaning that, aside from not accepting Him, they also commit a sin of lie; also, they obviously had a chance to meet Him, since they wouldn't pretend to be accepting Him; but they refused the chance purposefully.
Besides, there is moral law that God put into every one of us. If you accept that law, you have, to some extent, accepted God.
But I personally, at least, think you're on to something in seeing a modern application in it, as well.
That's why I put it here:
"The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. But the servant who does not know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping.
First servant is a believer. Second one is atheist – beacouse, as I said, most people are atheists beacouse they did not have true chance to meet God. So theist knows
exactly what his Lord and Father wants from him. Atheist can guess, based on conscience, but it won't be as precise, beacouse conscience may be altered by the surrounding. So it is only logical that atheist will get a bigger leeway – theist might get into Heaven easier than atheist, but it will also be easier for him to end up in Hell.
As for Hitler, notably, he was baptized, lived and died in the Roman Catholic Church. So he wouldn't need any converting from a Catholic perspective. Though most likely repentance and confession to a priest. (And maybe anointment? I'm not fully up to date on all Catholic rituals.)
If you don't reject your bad deeds in the heart (that s, acknowledge they were bad), listing them all to the priest during ritual of confession will not clear you from them – it will only add lying to the list, beacouse you are knowingly lying priest, yourself and the God.
Only thing that matters if wether you have trully decided to repent. If you did, you have to do what preist says you to do so as not to lie to him. If you didn't, then all of it will be worthless regardless.
As for anointment, it isn't used for confession; it is used for sacraments of Confirmation and of Anointing of the Sick.