Army Briefing Labels Evangelical Christians As A Terror Threat

Absolutely! But not practical, workable yet or maybe not in this lifetime....

We are living with in this world people with unstable, erratic moral objectives.

We need common laws for the meantime for them….

Take child labour.

A Christian business will try to be righteous in doing business: have enough break-time, working environment that promote kid’s learning, of good values, including health check, etc.

One will not always expect (thus, laws are needed) that from non-Christian businesses…that Christian business will close business in due time.

1 Timothy 1:9
realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious,

By no means am I suggesting there will be a utopian environment where govt. is gone and everyone is all of a sudden moral. There will still be immorality, evil doings. It's also a matter of prudence. For instance, recreational drug use is immoral, but the alternative is continuing the drug war which 1) costs too much money after 40 years of failure, 2) employ the cartels which leads to more deaths, 3) destroy more families when sending more to people to prison for victimless crimes (I'm not speaking in regards to people who use and then abuse others--that's a reason for punishment).

During prohibition, there were more deaths caused by violent crimes. In the words of Milton Friendman "a lotta' guys got shot in garages."

There's really so much more to get into this--I'm only touching on the tip of the iceberg, but this is one example. This world will never be a utopia. Man is still sinful and people will always need help. But I think more good and prudence can be achieved with more freedom.
 
It's a collection of things, from over-regulating to excessive spending on foreign involvement

Where exactly can you see over-regulation? Because from the early 80s I can only see massive de-regulation.

And what does “excessive spending on foreign involvement” mean? Things like the war in Iraq? If so, I agree. Although only partially, because I think you’re destroying your own both previous and later argument that Fed prints out money from thin air.

However, I am tempted to have the Arab oil in the hands of Americans, rather than Arabs. And I’m not even an American. But that’s a convenient thing for me - not very Christian.

And I find it curious that within that collection of arguments you couldn’t find place for the actual reason, in my view, for the crisis. Which is the same reason as always: greed.


That's a loaded question. The resources, value of living, and employment isn't as bad as it was during the Depression, but the activity, public spending, and inflation is worse--that's for sure.

I’m not sure on what grounds exactly you can’t see the end of capitalism, because I, and quite many others, can see it. Moreover, it’s not that this will happen sometime soon - it already happened.


What people are forgetting about the Reagan presidency is that while he may have been against govt. regulation of "free" enterprise, he high favored the shoring up/bailout out of major corporations. This wasn't even his grossest spending habit--he managed to expanded warfare and CIA/FBI activity more than his predecessors. This trend continued.

Not surprising, as since the 1930s America’s money are no longer America’s money. They are all, instead, in private hands: Fed.


Keynes himself said "In the long, we're all dead."

And he was right about this…


The short answer would be to End The Fed. No more printing of fiat money. No more of it funding unnecessary foreign interventionism/war. No more funding of excessive, unnecessary programs. It undermines capital growth, innovation, employment, incentives, and prosperity.

I entirely agree. But that doesn’t matter, because it will never happen anyway.

But that’s a long term solution. What I meant by solution to the 2008 moment is how would you have personally responded back in 2008 (or even 2007)? How would you have solved the banking problem: would you have let all those banks go broke? How many of them? Do you disagree with the claims that that would have broken the entire U.S. economy - and therefore, the world economy? Not even China would stand in such a wake.


No, I do not agree with those institutions. They make "loans" that no rational bank would even consider.

Well, I am personally not aware of a single country that borrowed from IMF or received WB funds that haven’t also borrowed funds from private banks. So…


The IMF has pretty much no incentive to operate profitably like a private bank since its funding comes from the US Congress that demands very little accountability.

The IMF money comes from U.S. Congress? I thought all participant countries also give funds. In other words, it’s a paid membership.


I'm not following your question. Is this in regards to, let's say, kids who work in third-world countries because it's either that or starving to death? If so, I'm happy to address that, but you'd be changing the subject if that's what you're asking.

That’s exactly what I was asking. And no, I didn’t change the subject, since the subject was you claiming this:

Child Labor: I support companies hiring kids provided this is a mutual agreement (in other words, I oppose slavery, I support voluntary contract).


So, do you really believe that child labor is consistent in countries like Germany – instead of Third World?

I understand your right (and mine) to but an electronic gadget (or a pair of shows, or a TV, etcetera) with as little money as possible. But when our save on the money means paying somebody overseas with less than 1 USD per hour (or is it per day?), then both you and I, let alone as Christians, have a problem. A huge one. So whenever all of us turn our TV on let’s think about that for a second: somebody had to starve so that we would enjoy a match or movie by paying 400 USD instead of 2000 or so.

In my view, mankind has utterly failed. Which is expected, once one reads the Bible.
 
No_one, may I also offer some perspective to contribute?

Of course. And thanks.


Can we agree that laissez faire has had little history in four thousand years to rise up and stretch its legs in any organized economy

Yes. But I’m neither a fanatic about nor an enemy of laissez faire.


Shall we have only outliers of pioneered territories that traded gold unabated in purity and even then banks would rush in to locally commandeer the transactions of voluntary exchange using fiat schemes.

I would have to agree.

As for the rest of your comments, as I said I’m not an American - nor live in America.
 
I can't agree with that at all. I don't want to live in a theocracy. I like our democratic republic, thank you very much!

I’m sorry to inform you that very soon you won’t be living in a democracy, but in a theocracy. Or do you think that Heaven is a democracy? How about hell?


Capitalism, by its very nature, requires competition. So what other economic system should we follow?

I think reformulating competition rules (by agreement) to increase the strategic element and decrease the internal competition plays well, with an overall consistent net increase in group’s participants over a long time.

Think about this: the U.S. tobacco industry played the game that you mentioned (capitalist competition) individually - and they lost as a group. Hugely - like no other economic group in history, to my knowledge. How about that? So indeed there is a lesson in Nash’s mathematical group theory.



I couldn’t remember my previous sources, but I found this as a quick example:
www.nova.no/asset/4666/1/4666_1.pdf
 
Where exactly can you see over-regulation? Because from the early 80s I can only see massive de-regulation.

Regulations have increased since the Clinton administration, but even more swiftly, by about 7.5% since the beginning of the Obama Administration.

The Federal Register is at it's record longest of 80,000 pages. It has never been this long in history.

Keep in mind, I think self-regulating is good, but that often comes from the demands of the consumer, not the force of the government.

And what does “excessive spending on foreign involvement” mean? Things like the war in Iraq? If so, I agree. Although only partially, because I think you’re destroying your own both previous and later argument that Fed prints out money from thin air.

Indeed, between the wars, the droning, the foreign aid, the occupancies, this is what I meant by "foreign involvement." We cannot afford any of this. Though I don't see how this destroys my arguments regarding the Fed. The Fed is a private/public central bank that permits govt. to use fiat in replacement of sound money (gold, silver, etc.). Let's say the govt. needs money for war and they don't have enough, they can simply have it printed up which will inflate and stretch the dollar, but their needs will be met.

If you're curious of how the the Fed works and how it empowers war and such, the best books I can recommend are End The Fed by Ron Paul, Meltdown by Thomas Woods, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, and The Case Against The Fed by Murray Rothbard.

However, I am tempted to have the Arab oil in the hands of Americans, rather than Arabs. And I’m not even an American. But that’s a convenient thing for me - not very Christian.

I think more seeking for resources is good, but only under peaceful trade. It can be achieved.

And I find it curious that within that collection of arguments you couldn’t find place for the actual reason, in my view, for the crisis. Which is the same reason as always: greed.

Of course greed, but on who's part? The private sector or the public sector?

I’m not sure on what grounds exactly you can’t see the end of capitalism, because I, and quite many others, can see it. Moreover, it’s not that this will happen sometime soon - it already happened.

It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean we are now living in a CRONY-capitalist society, then yes--I agree with that. If you mean no one wants voluntary trade to exist anymore, then I disagree with that. I certainly want voluntary trade.

Not surprising, as since the 1930s America’s money are no longer America’s money. They are all, instead, in private hands: Fed.

That's the part that's worse. The American govt. is still paying off WWI -- that's how in debt the country is. But even though the country is that much in debt, the govt. still gives bailouts. This is precisely my point. The govt. only gets its money by the private sector. And the private sector is reduced to the Fed's monopoly on currency. With all of these actions taking place, this robs from the people and future generations.

And he was right about this…

Indeed, we don't live forever, but I think you're missing the context of his statement. When he said this, this was in response to saving up, paying off debts, being frugal, etc. Keynes believed that saving was evil. He even believe that not only the govt. should spend every dime, but even individuals should spend every dime. This is Keynesian Economics in a nutshell--spend it all and stick future generations with the bill.

Most people, even economically illiterate people, have a sense that it's a bad idea to spend everything in case of an emergency or what have you. Keynesianism is counter-intuitive.

I entirely agree. But that doesn’t matter, because it will never happen anyway.

Maybe, but maybe not. The good news is people are actually very verbal about it now. It was never even discussed in past years. More and more people are waking up to the Fed's mischief.

But that’s a long term solution. What I meant by solution to the 2008 moment is how would you have personally responded back in 2008 (or even 2007)? How would you have solved the banking problem: would you have let all those banks go broke? How many of them? Do you disagree with the claims that that would have broken the entire U.S. economy - and therefore, the world economy? Not even China would stand in such a wake.

I see. The way I would have responded is I would have let the banks fail. 1) The public is not responsible for the poor actions of someone else. 2) Cronyism is unconstitutional, immoral, and destructive. 3) A bank or corporation should have the incentive to succeed and make good decisions on their part. If they can potentially be bailed out due to what they've done, then their incentives dissolve.

But let's say Bank X fails and they do not get bailed out, very shortly after, Bank Y will become the heavy hitter and will be the go-to place for the consumer.

Look, I'm not suggesting this is a great situation, but the alternative (bailing out) is much more damaging to the people and it undermines the invisible hand of capitalism (as coined by Adam Smith).

Well, I am personally not aware of a single country that borrowed from IMF or received WB funds that haven’t also borrowed funds from private banks. So…

The real purpose of the IMF and WB is to channel tax dollars to connected corporations. The huge multinational banks and corporations in specifically love the IMF, as both used IMF funds -- taxpayer funds -- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis in the 90s.

The IMF money comes from U.S. Congress? I thought all participant countries also give funds. In other words, it’s a paid membership.

Yes, it's not exclusively the US Congress, but is MOSTLY comes from Congressional participation.


That’s exactly what I was asking. And no, I didn’t change the subject, since the subject was you claiming this:

I don't think you meant to change the subject, but this is two different things. One is in regards to domestic policy regarding kids and work -- the other is regarding foreign issues. The latter would bring in another question; should the US govt. get involved or not?

Keep in mind, just because I don't want the govt. involved doesn't mean I don't think private charity should get involved. Especially we as Christians should be aware of this.

So, do you really believe that child labor is consistent in countries like Germany – instead of Third World?

I'm misunderstanding your question -- can you rephrase it? Sorry, it's my fault for not understanding, not yours.

I understand your right (and mine) to but an electronic gadget (or a pair of shows, or a TV, etcetera) with as little money as possible. But when our save on the money means paying somebody overseas with less than 1 USD per hour (or is it per day?), then both you and I, let alone as Christians, have a problem. A huge one. So whenever all of us turn our TV on let’s think about that for a second: somebody had to starve so that we would enjoy a match or movie by paying 400 USD instead of 2000 or so.

In my view, mankind has utterly failed. Which is expected, once one reads the Bible.

This gets into even more questions like the case for outsourcing, the regulating of private charities, etc. etc. However, if you think one has to spend a lot more in order to help someone else via a transaction, this is exactly what the Broken Window Fallacy is addressing.

This is one of the arguments socialism makes to justify itself, but the problem is it doesn't increase the value of living for some, it decreases the value of living for everyone.

And yes, mankind has failed -- we are stained with sin.

I think your questions are absolutely valid ones, especially since the narrative tends to paint the free market and Austrian Economics as something immoral and wrong, but I have to disagree with the narrative. I wouldn't side with Austrian Economic policies if they in fact hurt the common good of the people.

You're asking absolutely fair questions, and I commend you for that.
 
I’m sorry to inform you that very soon you won’t be living in a democracy, but in a theocracy. Or do you think that Heaven is a democracy? How about hell?
I guess we'll see. But I don't even think of Heaven as having laws and such.

I think reformulating competition rules (by agreement) to increase the strategic element and decrease the internal competition plays well, with an overall consistent net increase in group’s participants over a long time.
I agree, as long as everyone has a seat at the table.

I couldn’t remember my previous sources, but I found this as a quick example:
www.nova.no/asset/4666/1/4666_1.pdf
I don't understand how that's an example of them "paying the price" for their high levels of satisfaction.
 
Regulations have increased

I lost my thorough analysis of how that is so wrong last year, when my hard-disk crashed. I certainly won’t take the time to do it again, so be glad, you win.


Of course greed, but on who's part? The private sector or the public sector?

The private. Because, while the generic reason for the current global crisis is indeed greed, the main technical reason (or the technical description of that greed) is one thing alone: derivatives (and the trend towards that).

And by the way, I personally see a bet on either merchandise, or company increase, or company assets, or chances for a deal’s success, or interest rate, or whatever as strange - moreover wrong (especially when you let that bet to be an integral part of the economy). So you can imagine my opinion on a bet on a bet. And my opinion on a bet on a bet on a bet. And so on. Because I’m not sure exactly where that ends (for example the packaging of several different financial or rather pseudo-financial products into one).


If you mean we are now living in a CRONY-capitalist society, then yes--I agree with that.

And I agree with you agreeing with that. However, I meant more than that, but let’s settle here: does crony capitalism mean that either part (private and public) is doing what’s supposed to do? Couldn’t it be that they’re both failing their purpose, and thus the hybrid was conceived to conceal that failure?


If you mean no one wants voluntary trade to exist anymore, then I disagree with that.

I’m not sure that’s what capitalism means. At all. “Voluntary trade” existed millennia before what we actually call capitalism.


The govt. only gets its money by the private sector. And the private sector is reduced to the Fed's monopoly on currency. With all of these actions taking place, this robs from the people and future generations.

Again, Fed is private. And you’d have to prove (and you don’t have how) that all money Fed “releases” was required by the Government. In my view, Fed makes its own policies, rather than exclusively satisfying federal requests.


Indeed, we don't live forever, but I think you're missing the context of his statement. When he said this, this was in response to saving up, paying off debts, being frugal, etc. Keynes believed that saving was evil.

Are you a supporter of the Chicago school? Even of Friedman’s statement about corruption (and yes, Friedman received a Nobel prize)? Where exactly would you draw the line?

Let me remind you that even the Chicago school stated that they didn’t, at any time, proclaim a blind deregulation. (But didn’t they?)


Maybe, but maybe not. The good news is people are actually very verbal about it now. It was never even discussed in past years. More and more people are waking up to the Fed's mischief.

Feel free to update this data that I have from more than a year ago: 14 US states discussing real money legislation (and also proclaiming federal fiasco on economic policies), one of them already implemented gold and silver money (parallel to federal “money”).

Other than that, I still claim that it will never happen (federally, or even as majority). Because the Bible tells me that things flow to worse, not to better.


The way I would have responded […]

Again, are you sure the entire world economy wouldn’t have failed? And based on what? How could you possibly exclude all the inter-dependencies? Are you aware of head of state to head of state (transatlantic) calls to not let a certain bank fall, etcetera?

So when you say this:

the alternative (bailing out) is much more damaging to the people and it undermines the invisible hand of capitalism (as coined by Adam Smith).

you must first have to prove that there would have been a capitalism left standing, in the first place.


The real purpose of the IMF and WB is to channel tax dollars to connected corporations.

I would have to disagree. For example, I know a particular Eastern European country that uses IMF money to pay salaries. Yes, that bad…


I don't think you meant to change the subject, but this is two different things.

Ironically, in the end you reply to neither. Sorry.


I'm misunderstanding your question -- can you rephrase it?

Yes: do you really believe that child labor is more present in countries like Germany, instead of Third World countries?
 
I guess we'll see.

I don’t think you have to wait to see. Instead, you can see it now, by reading the Bible.


But I don't even think of Heaven as having laws and such.

Well, it was God who gave us the Decalogue, so…

At this point I’m not sure what exactly do you even understand by “Heaven”.


I agree, as long as everyone has a seat at the table.

I agree, but with one condition: that “everyone” must have prior to that demonstrated its economic worthiness. I mean, let’s not invite companies during their closure.


I don't understand how that's an example of them "paying the price" for their high levels of satisfaction.

Well, if “the Nordic welfare model is undergoing a fundamental transformation” doesn’t cut it, perhaps this says it better:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100757907
 
No One,

If you can show me where scripture states that in Heaven, we will be ruled as a theocracy, I would love to see it.

As far as your link regarding the riots in Sweden, I hope you noticed the following: "it was important to note that the riots in Sweden, like those in other countries, were triggered by a specific event – in this case a shooting. It was a result of basic demographics, he said."

The rest of the article describes how Sweden is implementing austerity measures in the midst of a global recession, which by now all but the most die hard of faithful have to acknowledge, doesn't work.

But again, none of that demonstrates that they are "paying the price for their high levels of satisfaction".
 
I lost my thorough analysis of how that is so wrong last year, when my hard-disk crashed. I certainly won’t take the time to do it again, so be glad, you win.

Don't take this as a debate. I only mean to address what is true and the misconceptions. We're all entitled to our own opinions, we're just not entitled to our own facts.


The private. Because, while the generic reason for the current global crisis is indeed greed, the main technical reason (or the technical description of that greed) is one thing alone: derivatives (and the trend towards that).

While the private sector can and has been greedy, the responsibility lies with the Public sector. For instance, if I give you $10 to hold for me for just a moment and you agree, and in my absence, someone asks for the $10 and you give it to him, I will ultimately leave you responsible because you agreed to simply hold it for me--you were not permitted to give it away, even if he said he needed it.

And I agree with you agreeing with that. However, I meant more than that, but let’s settle here: does crony capitalism mean that either part (private and public) is doing what’s supposed to do? Couldn’t it be that they’re both failing their purpose, and thus the hybrid was conceived to conceal that failure?

YES -- that is crony-capitalism. When both Govt. and Corporations are in cahoots with each other. Neither are supposed to be.

I’m not sure that’s what capitalism means. At all. “Voluntary trade” existed millennia before what we actually call capitalism.

Voluntary trade exists today. For instance, I bought a bagel for breakfast. I handed the cashier a dollar, he handed me the bagel, and we both had a strange moment where we said "thank you." This is the definition of voluntary trade. We each walked away feeling slightly more enriched than we were before.

Capitalism, in its purest form, is voluntary trade, competition (which is good for the consumer), and monetary growth.

Again, Fed is private. And you’d have to prove (and you don’t have how) that all money Fed “releases” was required by the Government. In my view, Fed makes its own policies, rather than exclusively satisfying federal requests.

The Fed is a private bank that works alongside the public sector. But when I said the govt. only gets its money from the private sector, I mean by taxation.

Are you a supporter of the Chicago school? Even of Friedman’s statement about corruption (and yes, Friedman received a Nobel prize)? Where exactly would you draw the line?

There are some aspects of the Chicago School I side with, but I don't quite agree with it. I'm actually a supporter of the Austrian School of economics.

However, if you're suggesting Free Markets are wrong because Milton Friedman said something that both of us would probably disagree with morally, then this is an ad hominem. It doesn't support any claim--it only works as a smear against an economist I only kind of agree with.

Feel free to update this data that I have from more than a year ago: 14 US states discussing real money legislation (and also proclaiming federal fiasco on economic policies), one of them already implemented gold and silver money (parallel to federal “money”).

Other than that, I still claim that it will never happen (federally, or even as majority). Because the Bible tells me that things flow to worse, not to better.

I'm not suggesting it will happen, I'm providing what I believe would be best for economic prosperity for people. No more, no less.

Again, are you sure the entire world economy wouldn’t have failed? And based on what? How could you possibly exclude all the inter-dependencies? Are you aware of head of state to head of state (transatlantic) calls to not let a certain bank fall, etcetera?

No, I can't be sure of anything, but I'm only going by numbers and even history. This is how Harding and Coolidge addressed the economic disaster in the Forgotten Depression. And aside from that, the govt. is still obligated to honor their limits as stated by the constitution.

you must first have to prove that there would have been a capitalism left standing, in the first place.

I'm going by what economics and history has taught me. Even when Greece's currency collapsed, they still found a means to engage in capitalism. I think the underlining problem we're having is we seem to have a disagreement on what the definition of "capitalism" is.

I would have to disagree. For example, I know a particular Eastern European country that uses IMF money to pay salaries. Yes, that bad…

Indeed, they've been involved in this. It's pretty rotten.

Ironically, in the end you reply to neither. Sorry.

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps I don't have a valid answer. I don't have all the answers -- I'm only going by what I know.

Yes: do you really believe that child labor is more present in countries like Germany, instead of Third World countries?

I can't imagine child labor being more present in countries like Germany vs. countries like El Salvador. My wife's family on her father's side is from a poor section of San Miguel -- most of the kids work between their education, and if not going to school at all, then they are exclusively working.
 
If you can show me where scripture states that in Heaven, we will be ruled as a theocracy, I would love to see it.

For me that’s so obvious that even talking about it makes me embarrassed about you.

But let’s turn that coin around: how would you expect it to be?


As far as your link regarding the riots in Sweden, I hope you noticed the following: "it was important to note that the riots in Sweden, like those in other countries, were triggered by a specific event – in this case a shooting. It was a result of basic demographics, he said."

Yes, I did notice the term “triggered”…


But again, none of that demonstrates that they are "paying the price for their high levels of satisfaction".

OK, you win. I certainly won’t take the time to find again my old links. Nor dedicate a single more second on this.
 
While the private sector can and has been greedy, the responsibility lies with the Public sector.

That’s certainly ironic, for one that claims deregulation…


I handed the cashier a dollar, he handed me the bagel, and we both had a strange moment where we said "thank you." This is the definition of voluntary trade

Well, during all that “voluntary trade” both of you also had to agree that that piece of paper lately called ‘dollar’ is money. Although it isn’t - as recognized even by its inscriptions. And speaking of inscriptions, there is also the topic if you actually paid for your purchase, or extinguished the debt or whatever other terms we may use. But let’s not get into that, we’ll only needlessly complicate an already complicated thread.

And by the way, what you said as “definition of voluntary trade” means that “voluntary trade” isn’t the right definition for capitalism after all. :)


I think the underlining problem we're having is we seem to have a disagreement on what the definition of "capitalism" is.

Indeed…


However, if you're suggesting Free Markets are wrong because Milton Friedman said something that both of us would probably disagree with morally, then this is an ad hominem. It doesn't support any claim--it only works as a smear against an economist I only kind of agree with.

Don’t start a ‘war’, Lysander, for it will be for nothing. I even give up before you declaring such a state to me. :)

And no, I’ m not suggesting that in any amount. I was only talking about the Chicago school…


I can't imagine child labor being more present in countries like Germany vs. countries like El Salvador.

Then how exactly is hiring a child in Salvador a valid economic deal?


How did I fall into talking exclusively about politics? I came here for theology and faith

Well, if you agree to end this, I don’t think any of us will miss it.
 
For me that’s so obvious that even talking about it makes me embarrassed about you.
Then it should be very easy to support your position via scripture.

But let’s turn that coin around: how would you expect it to be?
Since we will be perfect beings, there will be no need for any laws, rules, regulations, or oversight. We will just "be" in our perfect state.

OK, you win. I certainly won’t take the time to find again my old links. Nor dedicate a single more second on this.
Fair 'nuff.
 
That’s certainly ironic, for one that claims deregulation…

That's my fault for not saying it clearly. What I should have said was that while the private sector can and has been greedy at times, the Public sector is responsible for the problems because it has been given the authority to make these decisions...even though they technically don't have this authority constitutionally.

Well, during all that “voluntary trade” both of you also had to agree that that piece of paper lately called ‘dollar’ is money. Although it isn’t - as recognized even by its inscriptions. And speaking of inscriptions, there is also the topic if you actually paid for your purchase, or extinguished the debt or whatever other terms we may use. But let’s not get into that, we’ll only needlessly complicate an already complicated thread.

Indeed, we both had to agree that the dollar used was valid currency to be used. But this is the problem with a monopoly. Some places have tried to issue their own currencies and the federal govt. went after them. Right now, Bitcoin (a digital currency) has found its way around the system, but some agencies are trying to put a stop to it.

And by the way, what you said as “definition of voluntary trade” means that “voluntary trade” isn’t the right definition for capitalism after all. :)

Capitalism is more than voluntary trade--it's also a system of competition, wins, and losses. But cronyism (aka corporatism) doesn't belong in its rightful definition.

Don’t start a ‘war’, Lysander, for it will be for nothing. I even give up before you declaring such a state to me. :)

I don't want to start a 'war' as you said. If I'm coming off harsh or aggressive or just plain ol' snobby or snarky, please call me out on it. I shouldn't be talking to you or anyone else in that fashion because, well, it's wrong. So if I've stepped beyond my boundaries and went into snobby territory, that's my fault, and I'm very sorry for that.

And no, I’ m not suggesting that in any amount. I was only talking about the Chicago school…

I do give credit to the Chicago school illustrating some of the fundamentals of where I stand economically. I'd say I'm much more aligned with the Austrian school though.

Then how exactly is hiring a child in Salvador a valid economic deal?

Well, my father-in-law has told me many times how grateful he was to be able to work when he was a kid while in San Miguel. There was a lot of dangerous guerrilla warfare taking place, and when his father and a couple of brothers of his died, he was given an opportunity. He has told me many times how he understands the concerns people have for child labor, but that people shouldn't be so quick to think of it in black-and-white terms--many times, it has been a good thing.

He was probably the first person to open my eyes to this thought when he told me about 8 years ago.

Well, if you agree to end this, I don’t think any of us will miss it.

Haha, well we've probably exhausted this one :p
 
Since we will be perfect beings, there will be no need for any laws, rules, regulations, or oversight. We will just "be" in our perfect state.

1. No, we will never be “perfect” beings; only God is perfect.

2. Doesn’t “there will be no need for any laws, rules, regulations, or oversight” mean that then we’ll have no free will?

Oh, and since you asked me for Scripture support, please show your Scripture support for all those statements of yours.
 
You play an interesting game No One. You make assertions, dodge all requests for scriptural support, and then turn around and demand others provide what you cannot.

Please provide your scriptural support showing that we will be ruled as a theocracy in Heaven.
 
You still haven't answered the very first thing I asked of you. Where is your scriptural support showing that we will be ruled as a theocracy in Heaven?
 
Back
Top