RiverJordan
Inactive
I haven't seen that happening where I live (in the US). I know it happens in other parts of the world though.
It's not as bad here in the US, but it exists. It's not as extreme the experiences my grandparents faced in Russia or the Christians in Syria or Egypt are dealing with, but there even a small amount is an existence. Often the State undermines religious freedoms, despite its rhetoric.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Can you give some examples of the US government undermining religious freedoms?
One example is the HHS mandate. Businesses being forced to pay for contraceptives that infringes on their beliefs, otherwise they get penalized. This is a pretty prominent case.
But one major example, and I think this is far more heinous, is that taxpayers are forced to fund Planned Parenthood--this going against a major religious ethic. Or even forced to pay for wars that bypass the Just War Theory.
RiverJordan
Inactive
But businesses aren't religious institutions. Businesses are businesses and as such, have to abide by the laws that apply to all businesses. And as far as taxes being used for things you don't like, I don't see that as a religious issue either. Some of everyone's tax dollars goes to stuff they disagree with. That's not a religious issue, that's a consequence of living in a large society.
I guess if those are the main examples of "the state undermining religious freedom" in the US, we must have things pretty good!!
I guess if those are the main examples of "the state undermining religious freedom" in the US, we must have things pretty good!!
I think being forced to fund things that go against one's religion is a pretty bad violation. The Just War principle is Christian practice. I certainly don't condone killing -- and this aligns with abortion.
And yes, a business, owned by people, should have a right to manage their business however they see fit. If they are being forced to involve something that conflicts with their beliefs, then it the State intervening on civil religious liberties.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Lysander,
IMO, if everyone only funded via taxes that which they personally approved of, our country would be very, very different (and not for the better). As far as businesses doing "what they see fit", when that was the general policy we had businesses with signs like "Whites Only", "No Irish", etc.
I don't want to go back to those days.
IMO, if everyone only funded via taxes that which they personally approved of, our country would be very, very different (and not for the better). As far as businesses doing "what they see fit", when that was the general policy we had businesses with signs like "Whites Only", "No Irish", etc.
I don't want to go back to those days.
Either we have a freedom of religion or we don't. If taxation toward certain programs that compromise some people's religions are being enforced, then it's simple: it means we do not have freedom of religion proper. But also disagree with you regarding the economics of less taxation and the operation of the country. Call me an anarchist, but I think voluntary trade, sound money, and peace is a far better means than artificial propping, fiat money, theft vi taxation, force, and war.
Regarding businesses, I'd much rather let the consumer decide which businesses should exist and which should fail. I don't want to go back to segregation either. Jim Crow was big govt. and if a business picks up on racist policies, they should fail, but only at their own hand. I also believe in free markets for everyone--meaning all can participate in peaceful trade.
We are all created equally, in God's image, and the State doesn't respect this notion.
Last edited:
Economics is another issue, but I'll try to avoid that.
But ultimately, even if I were to grant you that taxes are valid, people of certain beliefs shouldn't be forced into funding programs that conflicts with their faiths. People deserve the dignity they're owed.
But ultimately, even if I were to grant you that taxes are valid, people of certain beliefs shouldn't be forced into funding programs that conflicts with their faiths. People deserve the dignity they're owed.
RiverJordan
Inactive
I agree that we don't have absolute, total freedom of religion. Religious aren't allowed to engage in human sacrifice for example, even if they really, truly believe in it.
All I can say about how tax dollars are spent is, that's what elections are for. If the Amish don't want their tax dollars to go towards the power grid, Christian Scientists don't want theirs going to medical research, and Quakers don't want theirs going to the military, then they can vote for candidates who will implement that agenda. If they lose, that's part of living in a democratic republic.
"Freedom" to me doesn't mean "I get everything exactly the way I want it, all the time".
You mean laissez faire capitalism?
But we tried that, and we had the sort of things I described. Certainly most of the people who lived in those places didn't mind, or actively supported, the bigoted business practices. I mean, if most of the people in an Alabama town like businesses being "whites only", is that ok? As the United States of America, are we ok with that sort of thing?
How so?
I kinda wonder about this sometimes. Not that I support it, just that now, instead of knowing who is looking down on people, we've taught them to hide it better. Would you give your business to a company that openly stated that they don't want "your kind" (whatever kind that happens to be)? Well, would you give your business to a company that just as fervently believed that but didn't tell you? You probably do daily without even knowing it. Personally, I'd rather know that I'm not wanted, than fear that someone might be trying to exact their own private revenge on me, or support a business that is secretly promoting hatred. In reality, any company that would act like that today would probably go out of business. I'm not sure it would matter if they could legally do it or not, it wouldn't be tolerated. As a white man, I wouldn't walk into a store that advertised "Whites only". I doubt many people really would. I'd just rather know that before I walk into the door than years down the line after I've given them my business.
I had a feeling you were going to use the "human sacrifice" example. This still bypasses the subjects at hand that are currently in question.
This is my concern with democracy; it means the majority can rule over the minority leaving the minority oppressed. Just being a system is being enforced doesn't mean it's the right system. This may seem like a trite example, but Hitler was elected. Everything he did was legal, and by the definition of how the democratic system operates, he was only going by the vote of the majority.
I agree. Freedom means promoting the concept that all people have inalienable rights. It means the opportunity to proceed in once's full potential. No one has the freedom to take from someone else in any way, so I absolutely agree with your statement. But freedom also doesn't mean being reduced to a "one-size-fits-all" society that demotes one's individual being.
Indeed.
I don't know if "WE" are not OK with that, but I'm not OK with that. I would boycott such businesses. I'd want them to fail. However, propping up these businesses, penalizing other honest businesses, and telling people what they can and can't do on their private property is statism, crooked, and unconstitutional.
Those businesses that existed in past years with "whites only" and "colored sections" were enforced by government. You're right that some people didn't mind this law and even loved it, but it also rejected the idea that the latter businesses could exceed. Let's say we had a laissez-faire society today and one town had a "whites only" bodega, you'd most likely see a "Everybody welcome" bodega operating shortly, and most likely it would be a successes, 1) because no business wants to fail, 2) most people would reject this rhetoric today and would not offer its business/would likely boycott, and 3) businesses have self-regulated their PR far more than before, and that's before taking into account the Dept. of Labor.
Which part? How the State doesn't respect this notion?
1) The Federal Reserve's operation robs the value of money that individuals have while it funds cronyism and unjust wars.
2) It limits private enterprise (research Lysander Spooner and the Postal Service--this still holds valid today).
3) It monopolizes safety. If I want to get a gun to protect my wife and I, the hurtles into it are almost impossible. I don't live in a very safe neighborhood, but we hear gun shots often, and sometimes when we call for the police, they don't show up. This means either be part of the monopoly or enter into the criminal system and obtain a weapon via the black market.
4) The HHS mandate -- 'nuff said.
5) Free speech zones. A freedom of speech doesn't come from bureaucrats--it comes from our humanity. It's an extension of our persons, thus it is a right. To people they need a license, need to be within a zone, etc. (I'm not counting private property--this is regarding public domain), then this is a violation.
6) War is to be waged only by the proper authority. When the War Powers Act was introduced, it allowed executive wage of war. Ever president since LBJ (when it was introduced) has used it. This is a violation of the people because it requires only a congressional declaration, not an executive.
7) The entire tax system. If Peter makes $x, he may be taxed more than Paul only because he was smarter in his businesses decisions. Rather than allowing each to keep what they've earned, the govt. will gladly take from Peter to give to Paul. And if Peter refuses, police will show up to his door and take him to jail. This is theft.
8) Funding Planned Parenthood. The subject of abortion has many layers, and each one is worth getting into. But only sticking to one layer, it doesn't belong in public funding. A) Because even though more than 50% of the people oppose abortion, it will still force them to fund it, B) Because this is a private company, but if other private companies aren't funded, doesn't this mean it is treating another one as something "more equal" than the other? C) This isn't strictly theological, it's also scientific; this promotes the idea that the youngest of the human family isn't enough of a human to its right to life.
9) Restricting immigrants from entering due to its difficult hurtles is a statement that some are better than others. People should be free to travel as they wish, and companies should be allowed to hire who they wish, whether they are citizens or not.
10) The bailouts of the auto companies and banks made people upset because it deliberately played favorites. It saved failing industries (even though they made bad economic choices) and then let others die on the vine.
This is only ten examples, but people have often shrugged and said "Meh--that's just how it works." It's like when heinous war crimes take places and people say "Meh--that's war." Just because something has been for awhile, does that mean all moral rationality must be thrown away. When people are even willing to provide charity by whatever means, the State gets in the way. During Hurricane Sandy, many organizations had to discard their offerings because Mayor Bloomberg didn't allow them to give foods that were "too salty." My own parish has been regulated by the mayor of DC to not donate clothing.
People deserve much more dignity than that. This world will never be perfect, but a sense of justice should at least be pursued, and one of the problems is that people believe only one entity can allow it to happen--but that itself is the definition of a monopoly, and monopoly of power is a menace to freedom, degrading and victimizing people.
Sorry for the long response. I suspect neither of us will see eye-to-eye on this. One of us supports government involvement and the other does not.
Last edited:
How about government involvement in covering private losses? In 2007? Again in 2008? And each and every following year?
Very interested in your answer.
Absolutely not. If the private sector is responsible for their losses, they are also responsible for fixing their own problems. Keep in mind, public involvement means making others pay for another's loss. This is unjust.
One might argue "But these private losses are so large that govt. would need to get involved to avoid a catastrophe." This is a flawed argument because all it does is stall a catastrophe, but it reduces incentive to cater to the consumer, and it further creates a larger expensive that the taxpayer and future generations can't pay off.
Not only is it unjust, but it's also just plain ol' economic illiteracy.
Well, at least you're consistent. And I agree with much of what you say.
But you're forgetting that laissez faire brought the world here, to a global crisis, not a government economy. In fact, it's ironic that it's a government economy holding most of U.S. debt - I’m sure you know what I mean. And that economy also holds the value of the U.S. dollar - I’m again sure you know what I mean. And the value of the Euro, by the way.
Isn’t it deeply ironic that decades after the communism fell it’s a communist country holding the economic fate of the world? And no, I don’t mean that in any figurative way at all. Unfortunately.
But you're forgetting that laissez faire brought the world here, to a global crisis, not a government economy. In fact, it's ironic that it's a government economy holding most of U.S. debt - I’m sure you know what I mean. And that economy also holds the value of the U.S. dollar - I’m again sure you know what I mean. And the value of the Euro, by the way.
Isn’t it deeply ironic that decades after the communism fell it’s a communist country holding the economic fate of the world? And no, I don’t mean that in any figurative way at all. Unfortunately.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree here, too. Often times, the market is blamed for an economic collapse, but it's not true. In fact, it's reversed--it's often excessive regulation and bad economic policies that cause these crises.
Look at the Great Depression for example; often, people say Herbert Hoover was too laissez-faire and it caused the depression and that FDR expanded govt. involvement which saved the economy...this is all false. The New Deal was built on what Hoover did. His high wage policy made it extremely difficult for more hiring, he caused problems to agriculture and trade and racked up record peace-time deficits. Hoover was actually very pro-regulation and was even called the greatest peace-time spending president by FDR. His running mate even said Hoover was taking us down the road to socialism.
Go back to 1920 when soldiers were returning home from WWI; the country was facing a depression just as bad as the 1930s (this is called the Forgotten Depression of 1920). What did Harding do? He allowed the free market to do its own work. This might seem callas and cold, but within a 1.5 years, employment and capital grew very quickly--which lead to the Roaring 20's. His successor, Coolidge, carried on this idea of laissez-faire capitalism which helped the people. This is around the time when more and more people were buying their first car, radio, refrigerator, etc. It was when Hoover stepped in and reversed this that began the downward spiral. And when the New Deal was introduced by FDR, it prolonged the depression. The unemployment rate averaged at 18% for years--making it the slowest recovery in history.
Communist countries like China, despite being Communist, have a very free market economy. One could start a business in one afternoon. Now granted, their capital is taken away for public funding, but their market has far less hurtles.
Their economic success isn't thanks to massive government involvement, but the one place where they don't get involved. China at least understands how capital is created and how it can continue to grow. This doesn't mean communism works, it means free market economies work.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Lysander,
From what I can tell, you espouse almost an anarchist society, where there are very few laws, regulations, protections, etc. I don't agree. I look back to the early 1900's in American history when we came about as close to what you describe as ever (in relatively recent history). That was a time of robber barons, child labor, company towns, no safety, environmental disasters, etc.
History shows that the closer we get to "anything goes and everyone is on their own", we end up with a "society" (which it is in only loose terms) of a few extreme winners and many extreme losers who are left to die in the streets.
Looking across the world, the societies that are the most functional with the highest levels of satisfaction among their citizenry are the ones that take the opposite track.
What you describe might seem like a Randian utopia to you, but in reality it's a disaster.
From what I can tell, you espouse almost an anarchist society, where there are very few laws, regulations, protections, etc. I don't agree. I look back to the early 1900's in American history when we came about as close to what you describe as ever (in relatively recent history). That was a time of robber barons, child labor, company towns, no safety, environmental disasters, etc.
History shows that the closer we get to "anything goes and everyone is on their own", we end up with a "society" (which it is in only loose terms) of a few extreme winners and many extreme losers who are left to die in the streets.
Looking across the world, the societies that are the most functional with the highest levels of satisfaction among their citizenry are the ones that take the opposite track.
What you describe might seem like a Randian utopia to you, but in reality it's a disaster.
This is often what we are told, but we're only told about half of the story.
For instance, safety in the work place:
We are told that without OSHA, there would be far more destruction and hazards in the work place. People would lose limbs, etc. etc. Why do we hear this? Because when OSHA began, there WAS more safety. Workplaces were becoming more safe for their employees and fatalities and accidents dropped...
But wait...What about before OSHA began? Well, here's THAT graph...
Fascinating. So before OSHA, workplaces were already self regulating, and at the same rate--in some cases, even faster! It's like a marching band is going down the street and someone decides to jump in front of it and lead it. It didn't make a difference.
This is often what is being ignored--the other side of the story. People believe that without government, there will be chaos and destruction and people will automatically become violent and irrational. Friedrich Hayek spent a lot of his time writing about "Spontaneous Order" where, whether it comes from self-interest or charitable thought, order would fall into place by voluntary measures. When people suggest that chaos would take place without govt., this I would classify as fear-mongering.
RiverJordan
Inactive
So you would support child labor, company towns, robber barons, extreme inequality, etc. if that's what a free society produced?
EDIT: Also, you're assuming that safety regulations only started when OSHA was formed. That wasn't the case.
EDIT: Also, you're assuming that safety regulations only started when OSHA was formed. That wasn't the case.
Last edited:
Child Labor: I support companies hiring kids provided this is a mutual agreement (in other words, I oppose slavery, I support voluntary contract). Usually people associate child labor as abusive environments toward kids--THAT I don't support this. But many companies actually do hire kids--whether it be working on farms, in shops, etc. This is often a great way for young people to acquire experience and skills for when they get older. Again, I don't believe in forcing kids into work either--I don't believe in force, period.
Company towns: This often means a monopoly--I detest monopolies. It takes advantage of the consumer and their well-being. But many times, this is caused due to cronyism--not capitalism. The best option would be to allow people to compete. This would create more opportunity and better options for the consumer. People hate Walmart because they believe it is monopolizing small towns--and sometimes, it is. While there is an argument that Walmart has created more job options and low cost for low-income families, the downside to what they do is they actually lobby for things that eliminate competition. They lobbied for a higher minimum wage--not because they were being altruistic, but because they knew their competition wouldn't be able to afford it.
Robber barons: I've heard this term before. Is this like an oligarchy?
Extreme inequality: I despise inequality of all sorts--whether it be extreme or minimal.
A free society is that of voluntary trade, valid justice, and respect for every individual's right. No race, class, gender, age, etc. is to be treated as anything less.
I don't have all the answers. I don't know if society would be better off 100% as Voluntary or more of a Minarchy society where govt. still exists, but purely for defense. My leanings are toward Anarcho-Capitalism, but that's just my leaning--whether it is practical or not is another question. But the current set-up, I'm convinced, is extremely insulting to people. People deserve more respect and dignity than they are given.