Choose Liberty, Not Dependency

[childofGod1]

Cool.



It's inherent in Marx's philosophy. Where Marx diverges from you is in his conclusions. He very fervently argues a point that much trade is conducted within coercive relationships. This leads him to a conclusion that a freer society is one which eliminates the coercion and force and allows human beings to engage in agreements with one another as equals. The "from each, to each" portion of Marx's philosophy largely results from his acceptance of altruism as a valid moral, and you are somewhat inexplicably hammering him for this even though you claim to agree with his views about altruism and the "from each, to each" line is more or less taken from the Bible.
Your qualms with Marx are not because he rejected the notion of mutually beneficial trade. On the contrary it's very necessary to accept that premise to understand the vast majority of what Marx advocated.

If trade is conducted under coercive relationships, (the use of force or the threat of it) there are or should be laws to deal with that. If by coercion you mean that life is hard and you have to do certain things to survive, that's reality.

I do not agree with Marx's views on altruism. I believe that a certain level of altruism is necessary within families, not the government, for society to function.

Marx's view was certainly NOT taken from the Bible. The Bible tells each individual to care for other individuals, giving as he sees fit. We see the immediate and direct results of our charity or lack of charity. This fosters close, loving relationships between individuals. Marx advocates a governmental system of forced altruism, where your only relationship is with the bureaucrat who takes what you have or hands out what he's taken from some other stranger. It absolves the individual of any responsibility for himself or others in any real sense and isolates individual actions from their natural consequences. It takes away our ability to be charitable through free will, and replaces it with coercion. This fosters isolation and selfishness.


Here's a different way to look at God and His commands. It's not meant to be a perfect theological analogy, but to help clarify the relationship between Christianity and liberty.

God gives us full use of life, of a body and of the earth to preserve them, from which we get food, clothing, etc. These things belong to God, and are His to do with as He will. In exchange for this, we are asked to obey His commands. We have the ability to accept or reject this trade. If we reject His offer, we will have to surrender the life He gave us. He's very generous, He has provided an account we can draw on (Christ's perfect life and innocent death) to make full payment for everything He has given us, and everything we've taken beyond what He gave. Not only this, but we will be allowed a share in the profits of His venture in the form of eternal life and joy. You have the right to use the life God has provided according to His terms. Each individual makes his agreement with God, there is no collective contract. Nobody else has a right to dictate those terms or to take that life, or to enforce or interfere with the contract between you and God. God owns our lives, but our use or abuse of them is between us and God, not the government, not the community and not any other individual or group.

 

[childofGod1]

Altruism (

/ˈæltruːɪzəm/) is the renunciation of the self, and a concern for the welfare of others

Part of the renunciation of self is the renunciation of those things of value to the self. I suspect that despite the frustration you feel with your daughter at times, you still rank her among your highest values. Even in the heat of disagreement with her, you would fight to your last breath to defend her from an intruder. That is not altruism. Altruism would be you sacrificing yourself and that which you value--your daughter--to save a stranger. That is the true moral evil of altruism.

I see what you mean.

I have to wonder if altruism is even possible under that definition. I value my principles, my commitments, and my Christian morals very highly. The value I place on upholding my principles means that my personal sacrifice is still in my own self interest. Wouldn't it be the same for anyone who sacrifices self for others based on their moral values?

On the other hand, involuntary altruism isn't altruism at all. If it's not voluntary, it's not self sacrifice, but sacrifice of one party by another for the benefit of a third party. I agree that involuntary altruism is morally repugnant.

 

[childofGod1]

In saying that, do you feel that you have washed your hands of all moral duty toward those in need? Of course it is your decision - to help or not to help. But can there be a question as to what is the right decision (or at the very least, the better decision)?

If you personally choose to ascribe to a certain morality, that's your choice. Nobody has a right to force a particular moral system on others. Yes, there can be a question as to whether it's right or better. Let's say a man has chosen a moral framework in which he sees aiding the homeless as enabling their dysfunctional lifestyle, thus allowing them to be a continued burden on society. He would find it morally repugnant to put a dollar in a homeless man's hand. You may judge his actions as right or wrong, but you can only do that from the vantage point of your own moral framework. He makes the judgment based on his moral framework. Unless you are willing to impose your morality on others through force, you cannot force him to act according to your moral code.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you personally choose to ascribe to a certain morality, that's your choice. Nobody has a right to force a particular moral system on others. Yes, there can be a question as to whether it's right or better. Let's say a man has chosen a moral framework in which he sees aiding the homeless as enabling their dysfunctional lifestyle, thus allowing them to be a continued burden on society. He would find it morally repugnant to put a dollar in a homeless man's hand. You may judge his actions as right or wrong, but you can only do that from the vantage point of your own moral framework. He makes the judgment based on his moral framework. Unless you are willing to impose your morality on others through force, you cannot force him to act according to your moral code.

My comment spoke of 'the needy', and I left that deliberately broad. But if you wish, we can add the caveat legitimately needy to alleviate your concerns. Now, in such a case, it is (I would argue) clear what the right (or better) decision is.

 

[childofGod1]

My comment spoke of 'the needy', and I left that deliberately broad. But if you wish, we can add the caveat legitimately needy to alleviate your concerns. Now, in such a case, it is (I would argue) clear what the right (or better) decision is.

No, it's not clear. I deliberately left the reason for the homelss man's predicament unstated. There are those who ascribe to a belief that the handicapped, sick and elderly are a burden on society. They believe that it's morally wrong to allow the unproductive to use resources at the expense of the productive, thereby lowering the standard of living for all. This is definitely NOT my morality, but I do recognize that it's the moral code of some individuals, and that they have a right to believe as they wish. They aslo have a right act as they see fit within their own moral code, and I don't have a right to force them to act according to mine. Society may only act rightfully to stop an individual's actions that violate the rights of others, not to force them to action for the benefit of others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it's not clear. I deliberately left the reason for the homelss man's predicament unstated. There are those who ascribe to a belief that the handicapped, sick and elderly are a burden on society. They believe that it's morally wrong to allow the unproductive to use resources at the expense of the productive, thereby lowering the standard of living for all. This is definitely NOT my morality, but I do recognize that it's the moral code of some individuals, and that they have a right to believe as they wish. They aslo have a right act as they see fit within their own moral code, and I don't have a right to force them to act according to mine. Society may only act rightfully to stop an individual's actions that violate the rights of others, not to force them to action for the benefit of others.

And such individuals would be (morally) mistaken. I have not said, however, that they should be forced to act in such a way. In fact, in the initial post you responded to, I said the opposite - 'of course the decision is yours'. That the decision belongs to you does not, however, preclude there being a right (or better) decision.

 

[childofGod1]

And such individuals would be (morally) mistaken. I have not said, however, that they should be forced to act in such a way. In fact, in the initial post you responded to, I said the opposite - 'of course the decision is yours'. That the decision belongs to you does not, however, preclude there being a right (or better) decision.

Do I read this right? Do you ascribe to the concept of a transcendent morality?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do I read this right? Do you ascribe to the concept of a transcendent morality?

And you... to Relativism? My, how the tables have turned!

 

[childofGod1]

And you... to Relativism? My, how the tables have turned!

Sorry, no. I don't ascribe to moral relativism, but I understand it and respect the rights of others to hold those beliefs. They have a right to be wrong.

Since you do apparently believe in a transcendent morality, I have to ask the obvious question. What, in your view, is the source of that morality?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry, no. I don't ascribe to moral relativism, but I understand it and respect the rights of others to hold those beliefs. They have a right to be wrong.

Since you do apparently believe in a transcendent morality, I have to ask the obvious question. What, in your view, is the source of that morality?

What do you mean by 'transcendent morality'? I suspect you have a very different notion of it than I do.

 

[childofGod1]

What do you mean by 'transcendent morality'? I suspect you have a very different notion of it than I do.

By transcendent morality, I mean that there are things that are right or wrong regardless of what any person or group believes to be moral. For example, it's wrong to murder an innocent person, even if everyone on earth believes it's right.

Let's hear your definition.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By transcendent morality, I mean that there are things that are right or wrong regardless of what any person or group believes to be moral. For example, it's wrong to murder an innocent person, even if everyone on earth believes it's right.

Let's hear your definition.

Your question is essentially this: where is the source of morality? It is a question that I am currently pondering and writing an essay on. For the latter reason, I can't go into too much depth (unless your willing to carry on the conversation through PM). Essentially though, I would agree with your use of the term 'transcendent', but may perhaps come at it from a different direction.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

The beauty of some future free society built upon Objectivist principles is that you and like minded individuals would be free to erect your own version of a social safety net. The difference would be that it would not be state run and participation and contribution would be voluntary. There are plenty of liberals in the world, and plenty of rich ones. They would be free to put their money where their mouths are, not mine. What would be so horrible about that?

I think that your description of the "beauty of some future free society built upon Objectivist principles..." aptly describes the world that you and I both live in. Not perfectly, but well enough. See my response to your suggestion that I demanded altruism within a society.

If the hunter-gatherers want "cougar insurance" and set up a free and voluntary contract to make that happen, we're good to go. If the farmers want to deal with the "hey, that's my turnip" problem and set up a free and voluntary contract providing (relatively) strong property rights, we're golden. If the hunter-gatherers (wanting better "cougar insurance" and the farmers (wanting better "hey, that's my turnip property rights") set up a deal where even better cougar insurance (e.g. a welfare state) is provided in exchange for even stronger property rights (e.g. property rights stronger than, say, Lockean property rights), we've arrived at the naissance of a modern 'state'.

You ascribe some kind of almost mythical status to the 'state' that I do not understand. What is a 'state' but a contractual agreement between free and willing individuals? That's all it is. It's just a definition used for a certain sort of contractual agreement that binds certain property arrangements with certain welfare provisions. It's a bundled contract, which isn't an uncommon thing. See your internet/tv/phone bill for another example of a bundled contract. You could set up separate contracts for your internet, your TV, and your phone service, but it's in the frequently in your best interest and the best interest of providers to bundle those services together. I realize that the comparison looks very mundane, but the fundamental difference isn't that great. The only unique thing that makes a 'state' a 'state' contract and not a 'tv/phone/internet' contract is the bundling of strong(er) property rights with welfare provisions. That's a unique bundling, but I don't see what's wrong with free and rational human beings making the decision that this is in their best interest. Indeed, I've contended before that you've made exactly the same decision as our hypothetical "free and rational human beings".

 

[Saving Hawaii]

If trade is conducted under coercive relationships, (the use of force or the threat of it) there are or should be laws to deal with that. If by coercion you mean that life is hard and you have to do certain things to survive, that's reality.

In the real world, there are not always "laws to deal with that". It's fine to say that "in most circumstances in the modern world" we can handle these issues relatively well, but that is to ignore the world that Marx was writing about. He lived in a world where the concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was not applicable, a world where even the basic rights secured in the Magna Carta were not applicable. That was his world. Coercive trade was a very real part of that world and in many ways it still lives in our modern world Look at some of the tinpot dictatorships that have used force to secure their power or that have secured their power through use of force generations ago. That's a very extreme and undeniable example, but the more mundane examples are far and widespread.

I do not agree with Marx's views on altruism. I believe that a certain level of altruism is necessary within families, not the government, for society to function.

Your remark tells me that you do not even understand "Marx's views on altruism". I don't like Marx and I think that he had a very naive and optimistic view of human altruism that doesn't reflect what we've actually seen in the real world. Your attack on him is an attack against a strawman though. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

The true Marxist society would have no government. If a society has a government it is, by definition, not Marxist, and not in line with what Karl Marx theorized. Marx envisioned a future world that was extremely similar to what the Christian Church teaches: "from each... to each". This is exactly the charitable society that you support: no government, simply individual human beings who truly care about their neighbors lending a helping hand. Marx had a vision of how this society was reached, a roadpath, and I understand why you don't like that. I don't like it either. But you don't understand at all what Marx was even about and you're attacking him not for what he said or did, but because of what sheer and utter frauds, false prophets even, did in his name. I really do like the conclusions of Marxism and I think if you would take off your ideological blinders and examine the world that Marx envisioned, you would like it to. The problem with Marx is that the roadpath he saw the world following was not the roadpath it actually was on... his understanding of history and his understanding of the future were flawed. That was Marx's mistake. You're attacking Marx for things that, I think, if you examined them deeply you would like him for.

If you want to despise Karl Marx, at least learn what he actually believed.

Marx's view was certainly NOT taken from the Bible. The Bible tells each individual to care for other individuals, giving as he sees fit.

Your second sentence is exactly what Marx believed.

We see the immediate and direct results of our charity or lack of charity. This fosters close, loving relationships between individuals.

I disagree. Oddly enough, Karl Marx actually agrees with you.

Marx advocates a governmental system of forced altruism, where your only relationship is with the bureaucrat who takes what you have or hands out what he's taken from some other stranger.

Marx does not support this system except as a distant second-best. He felt that such a system would be the intermediary step between the unjust capitalism of his age and a world of free, individual, and altruistic charity that you claim to support.

It absolves the individual of any responsibility for himself or others in any real sense and isolates individual actions from their natural consequences. It takes away our ability to be charitable through free will, and replaces it with coercion. This fosters isolation and selfishness.

This is a good critique but you're not attacking anything that Karl Marx ever said. Perhaps you've been misled as to what Marx actually believed?

Here's a different way to look at God and His commands. It's not meant to be a perfect theological analogy, but to help clarify the relationship between Christianity and liberty.

God gives us full use of life, of a body and of the earth to preserve them, from which we get food, clothing, etc. These things belong to God, and are His to do with as He will. In exchange for this, we are asked to obey His commands. We have the ability to accept or reject this trade. If we reject His offer, we will have to surrender the life He gave us. He's very generous, He has provided an account we can draw on (Christ's perfect life and innocent death) to make full payment for everything He has given us, and everything we've taken beyond what He gave. Not only this, but we will be allowed a share in the profits of His venture in the form of eternal life and joy. You have the right to use the life God has provided according to His terms. Each individual makes his agreement with God, there is no collective contract. Nobody else has a right to dictate those terms or to take that life, or to enforce or interfere with the contract between you and God. God owns our lives, but our use or abuse of them is between us and God, not the government, not the community and not any other individual or group.

Marx rejects Christianity calling it the opiate of the masses (something that years ago I would have staunchly criticized him for but no longer will), but he does make a case that human beings have exactly this altruistic duty to one another. He makes the case that human beings have exactly the same duties to one another that you make. To be honest, I think you're closer to Marx than you are to me. I don't like Marx at all. He was tremendously wrong in many ways. Disastrous ways. Ways that made the world a much, much worse place. But you're attacking Marx for exactly the wrong reasons. You're claiming he said one (bad thing) and not another (good thing) but in fact Marx said the good thing. You don't understand what Marx actually said.

If you want to complain about Marx, try to learn what he said and where his real failures were. You have no idea what you're talking about as is.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Part of the renunciation of self is the renunciation of those things of value to the self. I suspect that despite the frustration you feel with your daughter at times, you still rank her among your highest values. Even in the heat of disagreement with her, you would fight to your last breath to defend her from an intruder. That is not altruism. Altruism would be you sacrificing yourself and that which you value--your daughter--to save a stranger. That is the true moral evil of altruism.

LordBT makes a better argument against rational self-egoism and it's many philosophies (like Objectivism) than I think I ever could. Considering that we're on Christian Forums - Where Christian Community Meets Faith in the politics section, the vast majority of readers are Christians and most of the minority are composed of left-leaning atheists. I can't think of any forum participants, except you LordBT, who won't find this direct and confrontational refutation of what Jesus taught to be objectionable. Your statement, though well argued, is directly at odds with some of the most basic and inarguable teachings of Christianity.

I always appreciate it when somebody else shoots themselves in the foot.

 

[cfyahoo08]

You own yourself. Don't give liberty away.

The Philosophy of Liberty - YouTube

Does this mean you will/would support Ron Paul as president ?

 

[okafor]

Does this mean you will/would support Ron Paul as president ?

I don't know yet whom I'll support.

 

[cfyahoo08]

I don't know yet whom I'll support.

Well it seems most all of the other candidates on either side have sold out to a special interest.

He sticks to his convictions.