"Religious Liberty" ?

[Koldo]

IMO capitalism is purely about economics. I don't see where welfare is necessarily about economics. So a government which chooses to enact a welfare system, I don't see were this violates any of the principles of capitalism.

But where would it get the money from ?
If the answer is 'taxes' then the government would be meddling with the economy.

Do you think socialism is some form of charity? Socialism just transfer the interests of making a profit from the individual to the governing body. It takes economic control out of the hands of the individual. If the governing body wants to provide jobs for everyone, it can certainly do so. I just don't see were it's implied it has to.

It would be a problem in capitalism to have the government provide jobs for everyone, that's true I think. It would have too much of a contrived impact on the economy.

However individuals can be as interested in charity as any government. Nothing prevents a capitalist from trying to provide jobs for folks. Being a capitalist doesn't mean they lack compassion.

Compassion dictates charity, not economic systems.

You didn't get what I meant.
As an employee you are paid because your service leads to a gain in capital to the employer.
If the state has complete control over the economy, it doesn't make sense for it to refrain from hiring people. The state has nothing to lose by hiring people.

 

[Koldo]

That's compassion not socialism.

Yes. And?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. And?

What we choose to do or not not is because of compassion or a lack of it. It's not really dependent on anything else. Government, economic systems etc...

Honest compassionate folks can accomplish good works regardless of the system they are under.

 

[Koldo]

What we choose to do or not not is because of compassion or a lack of it. It's not really dependent on anything else. Government, economic systems etc...

Honest compassionate folks can accomplish good works regardless of the system they are under.

True enough.

 

[Nakosis]

But where would it get the money from ?
If the answer is 'taxes' then the government would be meddling with the economy.

They could be, but not necessarily. Taxes can be used to control the economy but not necessarily so. Capitalists can vote to require taxes to support a governing body. They have representatives decide how that money should be used. Capitalist can come together to enact any legislation they decide is mutually beneficial. Non of that violates any principles of capitalism.

You didn't get what I meant.
As an employee you are paid because your service leads to a gain in capital to the employer.
If the state has complete control over the economy, it doesn't make sense for it to refrain from hiring people. The state has nothing to lose by hiring people.

There is no "state" just individuals which have been given power. What they choose to do with that power is up to them. For you as an individual, it doesn't make any sense to refrain from hiring everyone. But, you don't represent everyone. Folks have their own personal desires, purposes and agendas. Not every person with power is going to think like you or make the same decisions you would. Socialism isn't going to change that. Folks with power can be as greedy in socialism as with any other system.

Lets say I'm in a socialist government given the power to decide who works and who doesn't. I don't like white folks or homosexuals, or I don't think women should work. What prevents me from deciding those people don't get to work?

Say I don't like you are your family, so sorry, no work for you. Yet I make sure everyone else who holds similar power or could threaten my position, gets all the best jobs.

 

[Koldo]

They could be, but not necessarily. Taxes can be used to control the economy but not necessarily so. Capitalists can vote to require taxes to support a governing body. They have representatives decide how that money should be used. Capitalist can come together to enact any legislation they decide is mutually beneficial. Non of that violates any principles of capitalism.

Taxes are, by definition, imposed/demanded. That means that even people who are against them have to pay them.
Any government action that goes beyond maintaining Capitalism ( in other words, anything beyond protecting the right to private property and liberty ) violates the principle of laissez-faire ( pure ) Capitalism.
When government intervention goes beyond that, it is no longer laissez-faire Capitalism.

There is no "state" just individuals which have been given power. What they choose to do with that power is up to them. For you as an individual, it doesn't make any sense to refrain from hiring everyone. But, you don't represent everyone. Folks have their own personal desires, purposes and agendas. Not every person with power is going to think like you or make the same decisions you would. Socialism isn't going to change that. Folks with power can be as greedy in socialism as with any other system.

Lets say I'm in a socialist government given the power to decide who works and who doesn't. I don't like white folks or homosexuals, or I don't think women should work. What prevents me from deciding those people don't get to work?

Say I don't like you are your family, so sorry, no work for you. Yet I make sure everyone else who holds similar power or could threaten my position, gets all the best jobs.

And then it becomes something else entirely, not Socialism.

 

[Nakosis]

Taxes are, by definition, imposed/demanded. That means that even people who are against them have to pay them.
Any government action that goes beyond maintaining Capitalism ( in other words, anything beyond protecting the right to private property and liberty ) violates the principle of laissez-faire ( pure ) Capitalism.
When government intervention goes beyond that, it is no longer laissez-faire Capitalism.

And then it becomes something else entirely, not Socialism.

Are right, you win without prejudice. Capitalism and socialism are as you say they are.

I've learn a lot through the course of these discussions, but I don't think either of us are going to learn anything more from continuing along these lines.

 

[JustWondering]

Have Christians forgotten the whole do onto others as you wish done unto you lesson that Jesus Christ taught? Have Americans forgotten that this country is a melting pot of people with different backgrounds, beliefs, traditions, etc...? Have Americans forgotten that this country is not a Christian Theocracy? If the government were based off the true principles of Christianity we would have no military (turn the other cheek), we would be socialist or communist (Jesus abhorred those who hoarded wealth and taught you should generously share what you had).

If an atheist business owner In the US turned away Christian customers because they didn't want to bake cakes with a cross or Jesus on it I think people's heads would explode. If a gay baker refused to bake wedding cakes for straight wedding ceremonies there would be Christians that would get worked up about it. Yet some Christians want to JUDGE, ISOLATE, RULE OVER and INSULT others based on their views and get confused when people tell them the obvious, that they are close minded bigots who would be more at home in the 1800's. I am not surprised by this behavior, just disappointed at how ignorant and petty a lot of people are.

 

[ether-ore]

Have Christians forgotten the whole do onto others as you wish done unto you lesson that Jesus Christ taught? Have Americans forgotten that this country is a melting pot of people with different backgrounds, beliefs, traditions, etc...? Have Americans forgotten that this country is not a Christian Theocracy? If the government were based off the true principles of Christianity we would have no military (turn the other cheek), we would be socialist or communist (Jesus abhorred those who hoarded wealth and taught you should generously share what you had).

If an atheist business owner In the US turned away Christian customers because they didn't want to bake cakes with a cross or Jesus on it I think people's heads would explode. If a gay baker refused to bake wedding cakes for straight wedding ceremonies there would be Christians that would get worked up about it. Yet some Christians want to JUDGE, ISOLATE, RULE OVER and INSULT others based on their views and get confused when people tell them the obvious, that they are close minded bigots who would be more at home in the 1800's. I am not surprised by this behavior, just disappointed at how ignorant and petty a lot of people are.

That was a rant full of gross misrepresentation. The "do" unto others is what is practiced. "Do" is a verb... an action. Christians have not physically 'done' anything to homosexuals. Expressing an opinion that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong is not 'doing' anything to them.
The "melting pot" has to do with (as the phrase suggests) people accepting a common language and a common set of values. Accepting aberrant behavior does not fall under that heading.
If a gay baker refused to bake a cake for anyone for any reason, he is within his right of free association. You seem to have the mistaken idea that people (anyone ) can be forced to associate and interact with someone else. Christians do not pass judgment in the sense that a verdict was rendered with any power to physically imprison a homosexual. Isolation has to do with the right of association. All people have the right of association. Anyone can choose for any reason not to associate with someone else.
Christians do not "rule over" homosexuals or anyone else. There is no involuntary servitude going on here.
To be insulted is a perception on the part of the person hearing something. It has nothing to do with the intention of the speaker. From the Christian point of view, the intention is to warn the homosexual that his behavior is detrimental to his spiritual welfare; not to insult.
For Christians to have closed minds is an observation from your perspective over their non-acceptance of your behavior in terms of their not wanting to associate with you... which is their right... just as it is your right not to associate with someone you do not want to. But that is the problem, isn't it? You not only want to associated with Christians, you want to force them to do it.
The 1800s. or any other century has nothing to do with the christian moral code. It is the same in all centuries. Being considered 'objective' by Christians, it is valid in all places and in all times.
Finally, if you consider Christians ignorant and petty. The solution is simple. Do not associate with them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO capitalism is purely about economics. I don't see where welfare is necessarily about economics. So a government which chooses to enact a welfare system, I don't see were this violates any of the principles of capitalism.

I think it's a pretty clear example of the free rider problem.

Poverty has tremendous costs for society as a whole, but most companies can treat these as externalities.

If one company pays for an anti-poverty program, everyone - including their competitors - benefits. If they let the destitute stay destitute and just hire armed guards to protect their own facilities from the people who are driven to crime by poverty, then they get to keep all the benefit of their expense themselves and gain a competitive advantage over their competition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christians have not physically 'done' anything to homosexuals.

This isn't true.

The forum rules don't let me say what I really think of this statement, so I'll just leave it at that.

Finally, if you consider Christians ignorant and petty. The solution is simple. Do not associate with them.

That can be hard to do in a society dominated by Christians. It can be even harder for an LGBT youth living in a Christian family.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

if someone does not want to associate with gay people he is called homophobic. if someone does not want to associate with black people he is called racist. if someone does not want to associate with atheists he is intolerant. but if you don't want to associate with Christians, that's perfectly fine. the push today is to eliminate all things related to Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

if someone does not want to associate with gay people he is called homophobic. if someone does not want to associate with black people he is called racist. if someone does not want to associate with atheists he is intolerant. but if you don't want to associate with Christians, that's perfectly fine. the push today is to eliminate all things related to Christianity.

Can you give any examples of someone was refused service by a business because he or she was Christian?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

the post above suggested not associating with Christians. it said nothing about refusing service to anyone. the comparison is that if someone does not want to associate with gays or blacks , etc then that person is criticized for not accepting others but if someone does not want to associate with Christians no one will say anything is wrong with that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Christians have not physically 'done' anything to homosexuals. Expressing an opinion that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong is not 'doing' anything to them.

Bull! Indiana made international news because the governor signed Christian values into law with his version of an RFRA bill. Christians have targeted homosexuals for violence, bullying, discrimination, and even murder. Christians have insisted a damaging and destructive form of therapy will "heal" them, despite all facts indicating it causes harm. Christians have been front-and-center of the anti-GLBT movement, and their always using their Bible as an excuse to degrade and attack homosexuals.

If a gay baker refused to bake a cake for anyone for any reason, he is within his right of free association.

No, he isn't. He is unfairly discriminating against someone based on arbitrary reasons. Unless it is a specific person or group that poses as actual danger or is disruptive, or some other really good reason, there are no acceptable excuses to tolerate public harassing and discriminating against a group or persons over a criteria of "special" circumstances.

Christians do not pass judgment in the sense that a verdict was rendered with any power to physically imprison a homosexual.

Christian history is rife with examples of criminalizing and prosecuting homosexuals and homosexual acts. It wasn't really that long ago when the Supreme Court struck down state laws barring certain sex acts, of which sodomy was often one of those banned sex acts. There are still many alive in America who remember when being gay or transgender was illegal in many places.

Christians do not "rule over" homosexuals or anyone else.

Then why are so many schools having to fight Christians over keeping religious mythos out of a science class?

 

[Nakosis]

I think it's a pretty clear example of the free rider problem.

Poverty has tremendous costs for society as a whole, but most companies can treat these as externalities.

If one company pays for an anti-poverty program, everyone - including their competitors - benefits. If they let the destitute stay destitute and just hire armed guards to protect their own facilities from the people who are driven to crime by poverty, then they get to keep all the benefit of their expense themselves and gain a competitive advantage over their competition.

Except they need to sell their product to someone. It's in their interest to support the economy. A healthy economy provides a better market place. Also the idea in capitalism is that the people can choose which company to support in the market. It'd be up to the people whether to support the companies which provide community protection or not.

In capitalism people use money for checks and balances the same as they use votes in socialism. Ideally in socialism a majority of people vote for whatever they see as being in their best interest. In capitalism they support whichever company they see as taking care of their best interest.

Greed/desire allow manipulation of either system.

Greed and compassion are not system dependent. Socialism does not cause compassion and capitalism does not cause greed. Greed can use either system for it's own ends and so can compassion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except they need to sell their product to someone. It's in their interest to support the economy. A healthy economy provides a better market place.

Not for every company - some profit from poverty.

And most companies are too small to effect society-wide change. The average medium-sized business can't eliminate so much poverty that it will have a measurable effect on its revenue or profit.

Even the companies that are large enough to do it have disincentives that get in the way. If mega-corporations A, B, and C would all benefit from eliminating poverty and you run company A, wouldn't it be in your interest to let B or C pay the expense to do it while you reap your share of the benefit for free?

Also the idea in capitalism is that the people can choose which company to support in the market. It'd be up to the people whether to support the companies which provide community protection or not.

It would be one factor among many when deciding what to buy. The fact that capitalist-oriented economies have been generally abject failures at ending poverty suggests to me that this market force isn't enough to create the effect you claim it will.

In capitalism people use money for checks and balances the same as they use votes in socialism. Ideally in socialism a majority of people vote for whatever they see as being in their best interest. In capitalism they support whichever company they see as taking care of their best interest.

Yes: it's a question of power. Do we want the power in our society on a per-person basis or on a per-dollar basis?

Greed/desire allow manipulation of either system.

Greed and compassion are not system dependent. Socialism does not cause compassion and capitalism does not cause greed. Greed can use either system for it's own ends and so can compassion.

At the same time, capitalism requires rational self-interest to function, so it's naive to assume that people won't act accordingly when this is inconvenient for you

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In capitalism people use money for checks and balances the same as they use votes in socialism. Ideally in socialism a majority of people vote for whatever they see as being in their best interest. In capitalism they support whichever company they see as taking care of their best interest.

Many capitalists claim that, but looking at the current state of affairs, this does not happen. It's like the claim that under a capitalist society companies will not engage in unethical behavior because they wouldn't risk the damage to their reputation, but many of the most successful corporations in the world engage in illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior, yet people continue to support them.

 

[Nakosis]

Not for every company - some profit from poverty.

And most companies are too small to effect society-wide change. The average medium-sized business can't eliminate so much poverty that it will have a measurable effect on its revenue or profit.

Even the companies that are large enough to do it have disincentives that get in the way. If mega-corporations A, B, and C would all benefit from eliminating poverty and you run company A, wouldn't it be in your interest to let B or C pay the expense to do it while you reap your share of the benefit for free?

Not if people chose to support B & C out of self interest. Why should I support a company which has no interet in supporting the community?

It would be one factor among many when deciding what to buy. The fact that capitalist-oriented economies have been generally abject failures at ending poverty suggests to me that this market force isn't enough to create the effect you claim it will.

I feel the same way about governments.

Yes: it's a question of power. Do we want the power in our society on a per-person basis or on a per-dollar basis?

Actually it's a per dollar or per vote basis. Since votes can be bought it still ends up being a per dollar basis.

At the same time, capitalism requires rational self-interest to function, so it's naive to assume that people won't act accordingly when this is inconvenient for you

Socialism also requires rational self interest. Yes, many laws voted in by a majority are inconvenient for me. As long as folks can be manipulated, it really doesn't matter whether the "power" comes by way of the dollar or the vote.

 

[Nakosis]

Many capitalists claim that, but looking at the current state of affairs, this does not happen. It's like the claim that under a capitalist society companies will not engage in unethical behavior because they wouldn't risk the damage to their reputation, but many of the most successful corporations in the world engage in illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior, yet people continue to support them.

I understand that. I just don't think socialism is going to change any of that. Or government and our parties engage in unethical behavior but people continue to support them.