Relative Slavery

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, "all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor" is quite applicable to the materialistic drive for the well-off capitalists. That drive pretty handily cuts off the drive to charity, which is Biblically supported.

It's just that some people have the means to actualize their envy by getting lots of money for things they do, whereas others don't. How that's fair, well, is another question. So it's all about exempting people with money, even though they'd likely be envious like everyone else (and likely are), and blaming the people without even though they don't have the means to make cash like the super rich.
 
Upvote 0
M

MarkSB

Guest
Actually, "all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor" is quite applicable to the materialistic drive for the well-off capitalists. That drive pretty handily cuts off the drive to charity, which is Biblically supported.

It's just that some people have the means to actualize their envy by getting lots of money for things they do, whereas others don't. How that's fair, well, is another question. So it's all about exempting people with money, even though they'd likely be envious like everyone else (and likely are), and blaming the people without even though they don't have the means to make cash like the super rich.

Well, if you're going to take scripture and constantly try to fit it into some political ideology, you're not going to get very much out of it.
 
Upvote 0

Chris81

Servant to Christ
Jun 2, 2010
2,782
292
Iowa
✟11,860.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Actually, "all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor" is quite applicable to the materialistic drive for the well-off capitalists. That drive pretty handily cuts off the drive to charity, which is Biblically supported.

It's just that some people have the means to actualize their envy by getting lots of money for things they do, whereas others don't. How that's fair, well, is another question. So it's all about exempting people with money, even though they'd likely be envious like everyone else (and likely are), and blaming the people without even though they don't have the means to make cash like the super rich.

I don't think that someone who is necessarily wealthy can also not be charitable. Likewise those who are blessed with the talents to succeed in the business world and earn a great deal of money are not incapable of having compassion for the poor and downtrodden of society.

My Libertarian philosophy does not entail a disregard for the poor. No, I have a heart for the poor and empathise with their suffering because I too grew up in a poor household and understand what they are going through. I actually believe that people should give more of their money to help the poor of their community and more importantly should give their time to support a local volunteer organization.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, there's no doubt that charitable people can be, and are, very much charitable. Although I would stress (appealing to the Bible, too) that money, being a quantitative form of power, inhibits the will in terms of charity for the more one has. In other words, charity isn't incommensurate with having lots of cash, but it takes more discipline to be a charitable person if you have more cash.

And many libertarians I've heard have held your same view regarding charity. I tend to agree that if social problems can be sufficiently ameliorated through the charity of people rather than governmentally sponsored programs, then I'm all for a paleoconservative/libertarian government. The catch is that I don't think this would reflect reality if indeed people didn't have as much of their money taken from taxation to fund these social programs. The main reason for this is that since Reagan we've been steeped in the identity of consumers, which is an identity especially at clash with giving. I'd be happy to try a libertarian government, actually, even if I don't think it would result in the best of all worlds in terms of charity for those in need. A libertarian government, to me, especially with its insistence on civil freedom (gay marriage, certain drugs, freedom to choose abortion) and slashing of defense spending and non-imperial foreign policy, is head and shoulders above Republican and Democratic attempts to take the reins today.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
I don't think lordbt is intentionally being heartless. I think he has a rather rigid definition of freedom which works according to property rights, and therefore excludes any type of taxation and equates it with stealing. He justifies this definition of stealing by appealing to a strict interpretation of the constitution, and then considers any negative externalities (such as poverty) to a type of market that results in hugely lopsided wealth as, what? Bad. But the world's tough, and no matter how bad society is in general, no matter how ridiculously wealthy some individuals get, it's always immoral to take from the rich what's theirs (without justifying how everything they earn is rightfully theirs -- which, granted, isn't an easy subject to talk about), and for everyone else, well, it's tough.

That's how society is indirectly defined by lordbt. Justice and fair play for a few, tough luck and "you should've tried harder" for everyone else.

No offense, but you only seemed to reword what I was saying. We are in total agreement.

His philosophy is without heart to begin with. No doubt property comes before people and is simple-minded jazz. If you go back and read the last half of my post, you'll clearly see that was my point.

He doesn't care that there total taxes paid are 16% in this country and companies like Exxon effectively paid ZERO last year, and the year before. He doesn't care that he pays 33%. He doesn't seem to think that shared infrastructure somehow pays for itself. I've never heard anything from him on the 1/3rd of our budget that is "defense spending." He likes to think that people are just lazy, in this, he is able to tell himself how NOT LAZY he is compared to all those HE THINKS are! It's a way of making yourself look good simply by thinking others look bad in comparison. Anyone, ANYONE, can think along his lines. ANYONE can rail against taxes but not think at all about the 4% drop in wages we experienced in the last 10 years, but just thinking about what has been taken away from them instead of what they are not given for their HARD WORK. ANYONE can pretend they OWN something, when in comparison, they own next to nothing. ANYONE can fall victim to disease in this country and have everything THEY WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES FOR taken away, THAT IS OUR MEDICAL INDUSTRY!

It takes a certain level of intelligence(which I strongly feel you possess) to see beyond that, and add in enough variables to form a comprehensive view on the situation. He takes a very lop-sided view, one ANYONE can hear from "heroes" like Rush Limbaugh all day.

I am not in the business of giving people credit where it is not due, and that is where me and you disagree. I will not admire the heartless and based off of our past conversation, he knows he is heartless and he is very proud of it. Maybe I'm wrong, I would love to hear it. I would love to hear that I am wrong. But here is the deal with his philosophy:

There is more hoarded, unable-to-be-spend, lazy dollars out there than there are lazy people, AND THAT IS SOMETHING HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND! This is a finite economy, which dictates that if we all worked equally hard and gave it our all, PROPERTY would still have some of us in the poor house. You reward hard work, you don't starve it so it has to keep coming back.

Other nations laugh at our inability to spend. I have the Galleria here in Houston, I have to stand in line behind a number of middle-income Europeans and Asians, and I'm fine with that. What I am not fine with is having the ability as a middle-income earner here in the US and NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THE SAME ABROAD. We are a joke because of his philosophy, it is demonstrable, and I think the true failure with him is never holding the ability to admit he might be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
I'm serious Received!

If his wages were suddenly chosen by the market to be 1.25/hour, he would still rail against only the taxes, per his philosophy. He can't complain about the scenario after his heartless rants on here. AT ALL!

Some folks are so busy forming assertions, but never defining what they EQUAL!

I am a little upset by his displays, I simply cannot imagine a person willingly holding that philosophy unless they simply cannot think straight, or hold and process enough variables. These people tend to never question their intuition. Their "guts" are the dumbest thing coming and going...
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
XTE said:
If his wages were suddenly chosen by the market to be 1.25/hour, he would still rail against only the taxes, per his philosophy. He can't complain about the scenario after his heartless rants on here. AT ALL!

Well, you've got a point there. lordbt hasn't really presented a satisfying criterion for determining whether what one earns is proportionate to how hard he works. To him, the relativism inherent to the market in terms of supply and demand (and managerial decisions) which determine wages is good enough. I agree with him that individual freedom in the form of property is something to be valued. He values it above everything else, even if this means the social disintegration of society (in the form of huge concentrations of wealth), however.

I don't think he's being mean or insincere. I think he really does value property freedom as he defines it, and really believes it's the most important thing ever.
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Well, you've got a point there. lordbt hasn't really presented a satisfying criterion for determining whether what one earns is proportionate to how hard he works. To him, the relativism inherent to the market in terms of supply and demand (and managerial decisions) which determine wages is good enough. I agree with him that individual freedom in the form of property is something to be valued. He values it above everything else, even if this means the social disintegration of society (in the form of huge concentrations of wealth), however.

I don't think he's being mean or insincere. I think he really does value property freedom as he defines it, and really believes it's the most important thing ever.

He has been told more than a dozen times. Can't question himself. Feels backing off from his previous points means we think he is stupid. I'd celebrate with him on that. Admitting you're wrong is the first step towards being more correct.

If anyone can find an argument where he blames those that have money for anything, I'd really like to see it. Until then, I'm convinced he thinks he looks good by thinking others are so very worse.

Pessimism, Finite Economics, Lazy Money, these are all things he does not touch on, and I think for very good reason: the explanation provided would sound more ridiculous than the assertion.

Death by starvation is a "market correction" to these people...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
M

MarkSB

Guest
How am I trying to fit it to a political ideology?

Second, how could it not be said that you were doing the same?

Seriously? You read so many things into my post I don't even know where to begin. Apparently posting a verse from Ecclesiastes means I'm "exempting the rich," and "blaming the people without [money]"?

Ummm. O.K. :scratch: Show me what part of my post even hints at this.

My post addressed no one in particular, no specific social class. Then you took the whole thing, turned it on its head, and pointed all fingers at some obscure group of "well-off capitalists." And you don't see how this is political? Wow.

I addressed principles. These principles apply universally, to people of all socio-economic classes. You took the scripture and tried to mold it to accuse one specific group of people, based on your political beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mark, I was doing exactly what you were: using a verse from scripture and inserting it into daily life. I wasn't -- at all -- inserting anything into your post.

I see it as political, sure. Your post applied it to politics; I did the same.
 
Upvote 0
M

MarkSB

Guest
Mark, I was doing exactly what you were: using a verse from scripture and inserting it into daily life. I wasn't -- at all -- inserting anything into your post.

I see it as political, sure. Your post applied it to politics; I did the same.

Discussing biblical principles is completely different than using scripture to implicate a specific group of people.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Unequal outcomes are not necessarily evidence of injustice.
Equal outcomes are evidence of injustice.

There will always be among us those who are ineffective, unaccomplished, and yet convinced that what they do should affect what they want. Unable to recognize their error, they rail against the effective, the accomplished, and the society that values them so little and others so much.
It must be the system, they concure.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Harpuia

Oldie... very very oldie...
Nov 9, 2004
14,888
914
37
Undisclosed
✟27,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Unequal outcomes are not necessarily evidence of injustice.
Equal outcomes are evidence of injustice.

There will always be among us those who are ineffective, unaccomplished, and yet convinced that what they do should affect what they want. Unable to recognize their error, they rail against the effective, the accomplished, and the society that values them so little and others so much.
It must be the system, they concure.

I usually try to help them steer in a direction where they would be useful to society, instead of continually putting them down and making them feel lower than dirt.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
60
Mentor, Ohio
✟19,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well, you've got a point there. lordbt hasn't really presented a satisfying criterion for determining whether what one earns is proportionate to how hard he works. To him, the relativism inherent to the market in terms of supply and demand (and managerial decisions) which determine wages is good enough. I agree with him that individual freedom in the form of property is something to be valued. He values it above everything else, even if this means the social disintegration of society (in the form of huge concentrations of wealth), however.

I don't think he's being mean or insincere. I think he really does value property freedom as he defines it, and really believes it's the most important thing ever.
Well, rather than respond to everything individually, I will respond to this and hopefully answer all other posts. First of all, your last sentence here is incorrect. I dont believe property rights are 'the most important thing ever.' I do, however, believe that individual rights in general are the most important thing. Property rights are simply one of those individual rights that I defend most often because it is property rights that under the greatest degree of attack. But the truth is, I defend all other rights that flow from mans primary right to life equally. For instance, if your right to freedom of speech were under assault by envious masses, I would defend you using the same principles and virtually the same arguments I use when defending the right of an individual to his possessions.

I think you have made clear your disdain for the concept of inherent individual rights on a previous thread, but it is certainly evident with regard to the concept of property rights. To sum up in brief, I accept completely the concept of inherent rights of the individual, and reject any notion that rights belong to society, the majority, the king, the state, the Fuhrer, or even God, Himself. They belong to the individual by virtue of his nature as man.

I think you can look at rights in one of two ways. One way or another, rights exist. They will either belong to those who seize them by force--might makes right--or it will belong to all men equally by virtue of their very being--right makes right. You have accepted the former, and I have accepted the latter. That is why you and I disagree on everything. We hold opposite principles and, thus, reach opposite conclusions. You believe that society determines what rights we possess. I claim that human nature determines what right we possess. But then we are talking about two different things: me, rights and you, privileges.

Look at it this way. When I was ten, I was allowed to stay up til 9:00. Occasionally, I was allowed to stay up later to catch a movie. Those are examples of privileges, not rights. Today, I stay up as late as I wish. That I do by right. How late my ten year old gets to stay up is entirely up to me. I determine that time by right. She gets to stay up as a privilege bestowed upon her by me. She has no 'right' to stay up beyond the time I set for her. But I have the right to set that time. I act by right, and what she does is done by privilege. Apply that to a social setting and you can see that if society (whatever that is) determines what my 'rights' are, then I have no rights. I have privileges.

You value the 'right' to property only insofar as it accomplishes your social goals and aspirations. You see the individual as simply a cog in the societal wheel that you use as you see fit. If one person has more possessions than you think he should, you believe you have some 'right' to seize them. You never, however, lay out exactly from where you derive this power to initiate force against another human being who is doing you no harm. That is why the comparison to the pick-pocket, the thug, or the common thief is so appropriate. You use the same method to achieve your ends--force. You simply hide behind altruism and use it as blank check on your actions. That would make the thief a bit more honest. At least he doesnt pretend what he is doing is moral. He knows what he is taking doesnt belong to him. And you know it too. But that doesnt stop him, and it doesnt stop you either.

Just as you have no right to deprive me of my life; just as you have no right to deprive me of my liberty; you have no right to deprive me of my possessions. If you believe that you do have such a 'right' from where is that supposed 'right' of yours derived? If you want me to buy into the whole idea that it is somehow just to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have to explain how such an obvious violation of individual rights can ever be considered just without destroying completely the concept of justice. You have already corrupted the concept of rights, do you plan to do the same for the concept of justice?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think you have made clear your disdain for the concept of inherent individual rights on a previous thread, but it is certainly evident with regard to the concept of property rights. To sum up in brief, I accept completely the concept of inherent rights of the individual, and reject any notion that rights belong to society, the majority, the king, the state, the Fuhrer, or even God, Himself. They belong to the individual by virtue of his nature as man.

We know that you accept it. The question is a matter of justification.

You believe that society determines what rights we possess. I claim that human nature determines what right we possess. But then we are talking about two different things: me, rights and you, privileges.

How does human nature do that (and whose account of human nature among the many culturally diverse explanations that there are)? Again, it's a question of justification.

You value the 'right' to property only insofar as it accomplishes your social goals and aspirations.

Property rights didn't emerge because suddenly everyone became enlightened and aware of them; they precipitated precisely because they did accomplish social goals and aspirations, and they are only valuable in-so-far as they serve that end.

You see the individual as simply a cog in the societal wheel that you use as you see fit. If one person has more possessions than you think he should, you believe you have some 'right' to seize them. You never, however, lay out exactly from where you derive this power to initiate force against another human being who is doing you no harm. That is why the comparison to the pick-pocket, the thug, or the common thief is so appropriate. You use the same method to achieve your ends--force. You simply hide behind altruism and use it as blank check on your actions. That would make the thief a bit more honest. At least he doesnt pretend what he is doing is moral. He knows what he is taking doesnt belong to him. And you know it too. But that doesnt stop him, and it doesnt stop you either.

Just as you have no right to deprive me of my life; just as you have no right to deprive me of my liberty; you have no right to deprive me of my possessions. If you believe that you do have such a 'right' from where is that supposed 'right' of yours derived? If you want me to buy into the whole idea that it is somehow just to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have to explain how such an obvious violation of individual rights can ever be considered just without destroying completely the concept of justice. You have already corrupted the concept of rights, do you plan to do the same for the concept of justice?

And where does it end? ... enter the Heinz dilemma.

From your responses, you seem to portray justice as something entirely unidimensional. 'If we follow these rules... principally the respect of property rights... the situation will be just.' However, you ignore entirely the purpose for which these rules were created in the first place, and where they get their 'just' quality from: the preservation of human life by facilitating meaningful and constructive social exchanges. A genealogical account of property rights show that they exist simply because they are useful toward that end, and where their usefulness lapses (e.g. the hypothetical I spoke of earlier) they cease to have any life-affirming quality (and can indeed become destructive to life). You seem to be turning justice into a biconditional proposition contingent entirely on property rights.
 
Upvote 0
M

MarkSB

Guest
That's exactly what you were doing!

Is that all your going to do is take my posts and throw them back at me? It's really childish and quite annoying. If you're going to make a point, try doing it without saying "No that's not what I did that's what you did." :doh:

You can start by showing me where exactly it is in my post that I was implicating one specific group of people based on econonomic status or political affiliation. And please be specific.

Here for convenience I'll even re-post it for you:

I'm kind of surprised there's so many people railing against the O.P. It may have been somewhat of an obscure post, but the point of it makes sense.

Somebody made a comment about trying to "Keep up with the Jones' ." Basically striving just to 'one-up' the other guy. Unfortunately this is the way alot of people live their lives, and when you look at people I'll think you'll find that those who are inclined to compare what they have (material possesions) to what others have are some of the most unhappy, insecure people around.

Solomon made similar observations in Ecclesiastes 4:4-

And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

There were some pretty bad responses to the O.P., some which show ignorance. As here, Solomon isn't saying that people shouldn't pursue a better life ('better' as in material possesions or a better living situation). He's addressing the reasons why people are chasing after the things that they are. If what you pursue is in line with God's plan for your life, it will bring you contentment; if not it will just leave you empty, and pursuing the next best thing.


Is there something I'm missing here? :scratch: I feel like I'm having another conversation with Ibrahim Fahim for crying out loud.

All I did was post a scriptural reference because there's Christians here so we can all relate, and have probably engaged in this type of behavior at some point. So far you've taken what I posted, turned it into a battle cry against "well-off capitalists"; then when I pointed out that you were twisting the scripture to meet your own ends you accused me of doing the same - without even providing any explanation as to why you think my post is political, or showing where in my post I singled out a group of people based on income level or political affiliation in the same manner that you did.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
M

MarkSB

Guest
And BTW if you're really having that much trouble with it, just imagine if we brought either one of our posts into a bible study and used it as the theme for discussion.

What I posted could be used for self correction. People would be able to discuss their own experiences, times when perhaps their motivations weren't in the right place.

And what if what you posted was used? What are people going to sit around and talk about how the rich capitalists are a bunch of greedy sinners? How their drive for greed overcomes their drive for charity?

Do you see the difference? What I posted could be used at bible study, what you posted belongs at a political rally.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0