https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2077747894497538258?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good in theory. The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul." "The world that envisions is a world without courage, a world without creativity, or ambition, a world without heroes, or glory, or great causes to strive towards, without a world without miracles, without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things." "And the world communism envisions is a world without God." "For these architects of revolutionary violence, the towering achievement of our civilization, for them, it's an unbearable humiliation, a reminder of what they cannot do and a reminder of what they cannot be. So they choose instead to destroy."
111 comments:
Marco is making a case for '28. Hard to argue against him. Though sadly from the same state, and thus somehow denied (because they're not Dems and won't make up a loophole), he and DeSantis would make a great ticket. At present I'd flip a coin to see who is P and who is VP. But again, both from Florida, so it won't happen. If they both run, at this point I'd be hard pressed to choose between them. Again, a coin toss. And between now and Nov '28, Marco will still be in office and Ron won't, so what does Ron do to keep pace? (At the very least, he'll need to learn how to run a better campaign.) There are no Dems who come within a hemisphere of either of these two men.
I agree that it would be a good ticket, and that both of them are setting themselves and the GOP up for possible success.
Rubio...
"Communism does NOT sound good in theory."
Well, that depends on who you ask, how it's defined and how it's enacted/ put in place. But yes, in THEORY, communism sounds noble, ideal, Godly, even.
The notion of,
"To each according to their need,
From each, according to their ability..."
Is, of course, deeply biblical as well as being deeply humane in the best sense.
"There was not a needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them... and put them at the feet of the Apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."
(Acts 4:34-35)
On the face of it, that is a deeply rational, deeply communal, deeply loving notion. Nothing at all wrong with that unless you're against sharing and helping each other out .
Communism is roughly defined thusly...
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
-Britannica
Shared resources, avoiding excess accumulation of wealth (with rational people recognizing what a trap and temptation great wealth is cursed with...), There's just nothing inherently bad about those ideals.
Again, nothing inherently wrong with that from a moral or rational point of view and, again, quite biblical for those who affirm Biblical teachings .
Rubio...
"The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul."
Nonsense. None of that is part of the definition of communism. It's just not. Indeed communism is encouraging shared resources, watching out for the marginalized, engaging in creativity and art. All these things are objectively beautiful ideals.
Now having said that, Communism has way too often in practice had actual bad results where it led to fascism - which is not part of Communism. But adults understand the difference and the need to distinguish between fascism and Communism. They are not the same, of course.
Ultimately due to the flaws of human nature and the peril and temptations of greed, I think capitalism probably has some minor advantage over communism that's a practicing economic system, if nothing else, looking at the records of each economic system. Of course capitalism is full of great evil as well, which is why I favor ultimately some form of post-social democracy over either capitalism or communism.
Rubio is just objectively mistaken here.
Dan
Marco is great to listen to as he tears up the Demokrats/LEFTISTs.
Well the idiot has entered the conversation.
Acts is clearly talking about people who owned private property, had income/wealth who voluntarily chose to sell some of their personal property and give some of the proceeds to others. The story of Ananias and Sephira makes this clearer.
The thought that some people owe other people the fruits of their labor is hardly Biblical, certainly not where the state (using force/coercion) takes from some to give to others. Not to mention the massive fraud we’ve seen of late.
The excuses for the fact that Communism has always failed and always results in poverty for the majority and wealth for the majority with starvation and a police state for good measure.
Capitalism has dropped the instance of extreme poverty drastically in the last 50 years or so.
Idiocy at the highest level. But keep supporting the socialist/communist slate.
Craig
"The thought that some people owe other people the fruits of their labor is hardly Biblical, certainly not where the state (using force/coercion) takes from some to give to others."
Sigh. Look again at the very definition of the word, communism.
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
Because no matter how much I look, the notion of taking by force or that people are owed anything are simply not in the definition. Do you understand that? You're talking about something different. You're talking about coercion. You're talking about theft. You're talking about abuse of power. That's more like your pervert king that you've got in power now. Communism is not by force, not by definition. Y'all are reading into it things that just aren't there.
Looking at the definition and the actual meaning of the word, what is troubling, so very troubling to you, that you can't imagine it being seen as a reasonable moral notion?
Is it the case that the idea of shared community is so abhorrent and foreign to you that you can't even imagine someone doing it outside of coercion and corruption? Have you not read the Bible?
You're helping establish a few things things that conservatives are demonstrating that they have extreme deficits in:
1. Nuance
2. Reading comprehension
3. Grace
4. just some basic human decency and humanity
5. The ability to understand things outside of their own worldview
Dan
I’m aware of what the theoretical definition of communism is. It’s the government using force to take things, businesses, and resources from one group of people to give them to others. Strangely enough, it’s never worked that way. The communist leaders lived in luxury while millions starved to death in the USSR. Venezuela nationalized everything and destroyed one of the strongest economies in South America.
The Pilgrims tried to implement proto communism and starved.
At least partly because communism is based on an idiotic theory that the value of something increases based on the labor involved to produce it.
I look at history and I see absolutely zero communist countries that did not see those in power stealing from everyone. Secret police, purges, reeducation camps, millions starved, more millions in labor camps, and tens of millions dead, is the documented legacy of communism. Fortunately we have the benefit of History when we evaluate various economic and religious Ju systems and both Islam and Communism haven’t fared well when the history is studied. Look at countries that transitioned from communism to capitalism, and how their people fared.
Again with the unsupported claims. The decline of extreme poverty can only be attributed to capitalism.
It’s impressive to see how committed you are to advocating for (potentially) the two worst governing/economic philosophies in human history. Who would have imagined Dan simping for oppressive, totalitarian systems.
Craig, missing the point, still...
"It’s the government using force to take things, businesses, and resources from one group of people to give them to others."
I refer you back, once again, to the definition of communism.
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
WHERE, specifically, in that definition are the words, FORCE and "TAKE THINGS..."??
HINT: those words are not there. That's your definition not THE definition.
In a free democratic republic we agree to taxation as part of the public agreement to live in that country. If you're going to live there, you're going to pay the taxes. Therefore it's the agreement that you have in that country.
In a free democratic republic with a communist economic system, the new public agreement would be that businesses, etc., are communally owned. It's not taking anything. It's not for us. It's the agreement you have if you live in that country. If you don't want to agree with that, in a free republic you are free to leave. You're not free to force your will on others. That's actual fascism.
Once again you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand words and nuance.
Now have there been some nominally communist nations that were run by fascists and not a free republic? Yes and those are awful. The same is true for capitalist societies run by fascists or those that lean fascist, like our current administration. Fascist tendencies are bad wherever they appear, whether in communist or capitalistic economic systems.
Nuance. Read for understanding and not grade school-level arguing points. Be better.
At the very least can you agree that force and taking are literally not part of the definition of communism?
Dan
I could. Dan's exposed his marixist sensibilities for years now. It's not a surprise he'd eventually give a full-throated endorsement, as he is here.
Looking back at the first colonies, the people agreed to try the communal system and it didn't work because of that which Dan pretends is "human tradition": our sin nature. Communism isn't a "cheerful giver" philosophy because the giver doesn't get to decide how much to give, when to give it or to whom it will be given. It's all government mandates, including what one does for a living...if that's living...and if there's no property...and Dan's own definition begins with "replacing" it, there can be no giving nor charity because that requires having property to give.
The problem here is simple: Dan is devoid of the ability to understand that the definition he uses is the con (he's into cons). One has no choice under communism...ever. There's nothing Biblical about it except in the most superficial manner, which is exactly matches Dan's Christianity.
Maybe try reading for comprehension instead of simply repeating yourself.
Name one example of communism in reality which has not involved using force/coercion to take things from those who own them? Factories, farms, stores, industries, all taken by the state.
So in your hypothetical scenario, those who own things (mostly shareholders) will magically give up the things they’ve built/bought over to “the people” who will magically be able to run the businesses, farms, and industries properly.
The problem is, for example, is that the value of a company like Apple isn’t in the (slave) labor required to build the stuff, its the intellectual property that designed the stuff and the capital that funded the development and factories.
I can agree that every communist country in history devolved into a police state, with a dysfunctional economy.
What, pray tell, is the motivation for anyone to do anything more than the bare minimum in your communist paradise?
This could be the absolute atupidest series of comments you’ve ever spewed.
We’ve seen the data regarding liberal women and mental health, but attempting to argue that we need to keep trying a failed economic system over and over again, makes me wonder.
Yeah, lots of people starving seems to go along with every communist country in history.
Craig, still missing the point ...
"Name one example of communism in reality which has not involved using force/coercion to take things from those who own them?"
I'll remind you of what Rubio said that started this conversation. ..
"One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good
in theory."
He's talking about the THEORY of communism. The theory of communism does not mention forcible taking. It literally simply does not. Once again I refer you to the definition.
That most of the attempts at communism have been enacted by authoritarians is not a problem with the THEORY of communism. It's a problem with the authoritarians.
And I'll remind you of Allende in Chile. He was legally elected by a majority of his nation and he tried to enact communism as he was elected to do. He was not the level of authoritarian that, say, Trump is or certainly not that Putin is, (who is not a communist I don't think) but he was problematic to be sure. Not fully embracing of democratic values.
On the other hand the conservative capitalists in the free Republic of the USA, overthrew him in a violent coup and replaced them with an actual authoritarian. Who was the more authoritarian in that case, the capitalists or the communist?
Nonetheless, AS I'VE SAID, the history of communist economic practices have too often turned out bad that I'm wary of a purely communist economic system. But that's exactly the point. It may sound good in theory but in practice it hasn't worked out so well.
I agree with that notion, just not with Rubio's false claim that the theory is problematic.
Read for understanding, indeed.
Craig...
"What, pray tell, is the motivation for anyone to do anything more than the bare minimum in your communist paradise?"
The Beloved Community, the Realm of God, a better world, a healthier, safer world? For the sake that hard work is good for the soul? Because it's good to be a role model of hard work for your children and the next generation? Because it's pleasing to help others and do good work? Because doing good work is good for your health and good for your psyche and good for your soul? Because you believe in the golden rule and hope that someone will also do good work on your behalf just like you would do good work for someone else?
I literally could go on all day. The benefits of doing good work are well-studied and obvious and reasonable.
How many reasons do you need?
Again, it's like you don't understand grace or the concept of sacrificial love on behalf of humanity. And You all think that we are the antichrist??
Dan
Craig:
Perhaps you're not aware of societies/cultures like the !Kung and other egalitarian societies that have existed throughout history. They have lived without the notion of private lands, class groups, etc. From AI:
"The !Kung (or Ju/'hoansi) of the Kalahari Desert and similar ancient foraging groups utilized active mechanisms to maintain social, economic, and gender equality. Anthropologists define this as "fierce egalitarianism"—a system where communities consciously prevented any single individual or group from accumulating power, wealth, or disproportionate status"
Not that these groups are any more "pristine" or prone to violence and conflict the way the rest of us are, but there are/have been examples of people choosing to live in community in a communal manner. That would include, of course, the early church.
But what did they know!
But again, at least nowadays, the idea of privately owned shit is pretty ingrained in us and that manna is hard to overcome. I'm wary of any attempts at Marxist/egalitarian efforts in the context of modern nation states.
But none of that is proof that the CONCEPTS of the theory of Marxism are inherently bad. Again, as he lead with, it DOES sound good in theory. It sounds gracious and moral, in theory. It sounds extremely Christ-ian in theory. In practice, it's much more difficult. Just as it is difficult in practice in the real world to have a non-exploitative, non-oppressive capitalist system.
Economics are just tough, in practice (whether communist/egalitarian or capitalist). Just ask most who have tried to live in intentional communities.
So, no you choose to ignore the facts and history in favor of a theoretical definition.
Well, in your Pollyanna, rise colored, fantasy world where everyone believes your pablum and no one has any desire to better themselves beyond the place assigned to them by the state.
I’ll live in the real world where extreme poverty dropped exponentially thanks to capitalism, rather than the one with starvation, poverty, and a police state.
This idiocy needs to stop, I’m saying this for your own good. Shilling for two of the most destructive governing systems in history isn’t a good look. But I’m sure you have a fantasy of staying in your cushy non profit gig after communism takes over.
This is your best example of the roaring success of communism? Some random desert hunter/gather tribe stuck in the same lifestyle they had centuries ago.
Yeah, privately owned shit, freedom, and the shit capitalism protects are pretty popular. Especially when poverty and hunger are the alternatives.
Scripture is full (even Acts) of the concept of private property and the protection thereof. But it’s just one more out of context proof text so you can put lipstick on a pig.
FYI, nothing is stopping you from forming your own little commune and living out the ideals you claim to be so devoted to.
Craig:
no you choose to ignore the facts and history in favor of a theoretical definition.
??? I was/am LITERALLY responding to Rubio's complaint about the THEORY, as YOU posted. The THEORY is fine. The practice of communism - much like the practice of capitalism, is more problematic in the real world.
Again, Allende was not the most Democratic of leaders in Chile.
BUT, Pinochet - who the capitalists installed as leader of Chile - was a violent authoritarian. ONE nation with two practices. In THAT real world instance, the one with Capitalist support was the FAR more deadly and oppressive than the one legally elected by his people.
I'm literally just pushing back against what Rubio said about the THEORY. It's not the Theory that's problematic. it has been the practice, at least in recent history.
If you don't like that I'm responding to your actual post and the theory promoted by your post, then maybe you shouldn't post ideas that can't withstand basic reason and respectful consideration.
Grow up a bit, my man.
The theory, when removed from reality and placed in the best possible light and by ignoring human nature, might be okay at best. But, like everything else in the world, we judge theories by their results in the real world.
So far, your two shining examples of communism done “well” are a hunter/gatherer tribe in the African desert and Allende who by your own admission was not a good ruler. I can absolutely see why you’re such a fan with a track record like that. What’s next? You try to make Mao or Stalin look good?
This fantasy that you can divorce the theory from the practice is insane, but so is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Well the theory sounds awesome, but every time it’s tried it results in totalitarian rule, secret police, concentration camps, starvation, economic decline, and a very small ruling class which lives in luxury.
That sounds crazy, but if you want to sound crazy, I won’t stop you.
The problem with that imposing communism on any group of people is that it literally involves “the people” taking assets and property from the lawful owners and giving it to someone else. Even if it’s voted in, the minority will be forced to divest (it’s tarted up by calling it nationalization) itself of property by the threat of force of the majority.
Again, there’s nothing stopping Dan from buying an island and accepting volunteers to join his dictionary definition perfect communist society. Yet he and his buddies choose not to do so.
When you remove the incentive to risk, innovate, and invest to give it to the state, you lose the innovation that drives society forward.
I still can’t believe Dan is so supportive of (arguably) the two governmental philosophies that have resulted in conquest, slavery, starvation, oppression, and death at a scale that most humans find incomprehensible.
Let's look at Dan's definition again:
"a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
That it "aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production" is not at all Biblical in any way. Even if all people agreed to this, that reduces the 10 Commandments to at least 9, as one can't steal what isn't owned. "Public ownership" is nonsensical, and people work to improve their own situation to a standard they believe is deserving to them. This disappears in a communist system, as the means by which one develops the ability to own property is wildly denied. The moment the "public" decides what one has built should be for "the public", the one who built it spent his time, sweat and money for that which he doesn't even have the choice to give it to "the public"...even if serving the public welfare was his driving motivation for building it in the first place.
Moreover, it reduces the 10 by another point, by its inherent covetous nature. Someone or some people eyeing that which belongs to others. Far better is our current system which allows those willing to determine to whom they should direct their charitable dollars, while at the same time helping...just by virtue of being a part of it, really...that prosperity will come to whomever chooses to avail themselves of all life (and God) has to offer.
Neither the passage in Acts, nor our first attempts by the Plymouth Colony, were coercive acts at all. They were agreed upon arrangements, very much like Dan suggests a communist society is. Both suffered from what Scripture teaches about human nature, which Dan denies: that we do have a sin nature, without which communist might actually work. In Acts, Ananias pretends to be totally down with the sharing but actually kept some of the property sale profits for himself. In Plymouth, the failure of the plan was due to those who wouldn't work as hard as those who understood what was being attempted. And this is the biggest failure of communism. Both of those stories proves it. For communism to work, there can be no one who isn't on board and all must regard every idea within it to be valid and desired. That gets harder and harder the larger the community grows.
I would submit that Dan is among those who could not be trusted to be on board with the plan, unless the plan was reduced to everyone living in their own dorm and working the crops the same way. That is, Dan's already shown he's not willing to do what's necessary to increase his own wealth, and I find it hard to imagine that he would work harder to increase the community's wealth, likely on the basis of "over consumption" and other "progressive" nonsense like that. Thus, Dan would not really be working to improve the lot of the community, but only faking it like Ananias.
Craig...
"I still can’t believe Dan is so supportive of (arguably) the two governmental philosophies that have resulted in conquest, slavery, starvation,"
I've been quite clear, I am wary of attempts at communist countries. That is hardly being so supportive. I guess the other one you're talking about is Muslims because you try to think of Muslims all as one group. I on the other hand condemn the violent and oppressive Muslims and celebrate the progressive and good Muslims. I don't blame all people in one group and I certainly don't support oppressive governments. Don't be a jackass, son.
It's that sort of stupidly false demonization and attacks that makes modern MAGA conservatives so ripe to support authoritarian governments like they do. You want to show credibility and that you can understand adult reasoning? Then admit that is not a fair or correct representation of what I have said. Then condemn your own authoritarian-leaning president. Apologize for voting for that. In other words, first remove the plank from your own eye.
Dan
Dan's example clearly states that the community "PREVENTS" any single individual or group from accumulating power, wealth or disproportionate status. That's totally authoritarian and despotic.
That’s a strange way to back away from
your support for these two ideological/governmental philosophies. All I need to do to evaluate Islam is look at the history, look at the map, listen to the victims and go from there.
You’re the one championing Islam and communism. Not me.
Why are you so weird? I support good Muslims who are good and progressive and decent human beings. I oppose bad Muslims. I support good Christians who are respectful and cause no harm and are not oppressive. I oppose bad Christians.
And I'm simply acknowledging the reality that the theories around communism are not inherently wrong or bad in and of themselves. That's all. That's all objectively rationally true. What in the name of all that's good and holy are you objecting to?
Lumping all people together in one group is the very definition of being bigoted. If you don't want to be accused of bigotry, don't say bigoted stuff.
Dan
Dan,
Trump is not at all authoritarian, you stupidly dishonest little girl. And as usual, being anti-American as well as being anti-Christ, Dan overstates American influence in the coup which overthrew Allende. It's a common belief, but a false one. The left doesn't care.
In the meantime, there was nothing good happening in Chile while Allende held power. He was destroying the place.
In any case, it stands that the notion of communism, even as Dan defines it, is not an accurate definition given the history of all attempts in install it. And again, there's nothing Biblical about it just because, as with Dan's brand of Christianity, there's no better than the most superficial of comparisons.
Craig...
"This fantasy that you can divorce the theory from the practice is insane, but so is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
1. There's never been a truly communist state as it is described by Marx.
2. There have only been a handful or two that have been called communist states.
3. And for the most part those were all begun by actual authoritarians.
Once again in the real world if you have authoritarians operating under a capitalist system, you will have disaster. If you have authoritarians operating under a communist system, you will have disaster. The problem is not the capitalism or the communism. The problem is the authoritarianism in the real world.
4. That's hardly a significant sampling.
How many times did you have to shoot a basketball towards a hoop before it went in? More than ten times, I assume?
Dan
"I support good Christians who are respectful and cause no harm and are not oppressive." ...like oppressing the unborn in a most violent and barbaric manner to the tune of around 800K annually in this country alone. Dan doesn't oppose those Christians. He's one of them.
I’m not weird at all. You say you support some Muslims who meet your arbitrary criteria, while those Muslims sit silently by whine Islam as a whole runs amok.
I was unaware that anyone put you in the position to establish these definitions, and to define who is really Muslim and who’s not.
If you want to live in some fantasy, theory, world feel free. I’ll live in the real world where we can see the actual results of both Islam and communism. Reality should probably trump theory.
Good point. That this prevention has universally failed in real life seems germane as well.
15 countries, zero successes. How many more need to suffer and die for this absurd fantasy.
15 seems like more than a handful, but that’s just me.
57 Muslim countries and how many of those are run by your moderate Muslims? How many of these 72 countries (plus the few like Spain that threw off the Muslim conquest) were/are known for individual freedom.
I’ll repeat, you have the freedom to start your own little communist enclave, but you choose not to . That speaks much more loudly than your prating on about your fantasy world.
And I'll repeat for those who have a hard time understanding words, Rubio's entire conceit was that the whole phrase was problematic....
1. Communism may sound good in theory...
2. But it doesn't work in the real world.
Rubio was not satisfied with that and had to object to the first premise, but he made zero case for his objection. Communism literally sounds entirely fine on the face of it in theory. There's nothing wrong with the notion of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." In theory or in practice really.
It's an extremely Christian and humane and bottom line, rational thing to believe in. That's where this breaks down. THAT'S what I'm objecting to. It doesn't sound bad in theory. It sounds good. If y'all want to try to prove somehow that it sounds bad in theory then you've got to prove it. It's not sufficient to act like a belligerent little child and say, "No it doesn't! No it doesn't! No it doesn't!"
Grow the hell up.
Noting that reality is not a defense of fascist or authoritarian countries that were Marxist, any more than it would be for a capitalist authoritarian state. Y'all's problem is y'all defend capitalists who lean towards authoritarianism. That's the real problem here. That's the real shame here. That's the real breakdown in simple rational morality. Indeed if nothing else Trump has shown the huge gaping hellish hole in capitalist theory. He has demonstrated that if you're willing to be entirely moral, cowardly, abusive and cruel, capitalists can get away with literal corruption and murder. Y'all are letting him get away with murder. Open your eyes.
Trump and MAGA are precisely why people find some good amount of common moral sense in Marxist theories. I would argue that the social democrats - who are not communist, don't be obtuse - are succeeding so much precisely because so many people find the authoritarian capitalism of this administration a genuine threat to lives and liberty, as evidenced by reality.
Trump is the role model for the argument against capitalism. You all just can't see that.
Think better. Reason better. Be better.
Dan
Of course, that should have said "amoral" not "moral". Just to clarify.
Dan
1. If giving up things like freedom and ownership of private property sounds good, then sure.
2. That is True, it’s been an abject failure leading to mass death, starvation, and oppression.
The problem you have is that you are confusing your personal feelings about communism, with your objective claim about what others think about communism. As someone who thinks that ownership of private property is a good thing, the whole notion of taking from those who’ve built or purchased something to give to someone who hasn’t sounds unappealing at best
A government taking from some to give to others, is hardly a Biblical concept.
Y’all’s problem is you make shit up and pretend that it represents something we’ve said or believe and argue against your made up shit, not reality.
But, by all means keep up with the insanity.
Tens of millions dead and imprisoned, oppression, poverty, and all the rest tell us everything we need to know about communism in the real world.
Craig...
"1. If giving up things like freedom and ownership of private property sounds good, then sure.
2. That is True, it’s been an abject failure leading to mass death, starvation, and oppression.
The problem you have is that you are confusing your personal feelings about communism, with your objective claim about what others think about communism."
[Rolls eyes]
I refer you YET AGAIN to the objectively observable definition of Communism.
Surrendering freedom is NOT part of the definition.
The problem you have is that you are confusing your personal feelings about communism with the actual definition. That the notion of sharing hurts your feelings doesn't change the definition.
You boys would have Jesus locked up and on his way to a kangaroo court in WAY faster time than three years.
Dan
https://youtu.be/u-lVOYAABr4?si=xAOEJggfN2bP4J_x
Dt
Craig...
"A government taking from some to give to others, is hardly a Biblical concept."
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNISM. Again, by definition. That you have a problem with reading comprehension and understanding definitions is not an indictment of communism. It's an indictment of you.
Dan
Really, I’m unaware of any of the 15 communist countries with no government.
But as long as you are living in fairly land, rather than in the real world.
When private property is taken from some and given to others, that’s literally a loss of freedom.
Now in your fairy tale, dictionary definition, fantasy land you can make whatever claims you want to because none of it is real. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world where we look at the carnage communism and Islam have left behind.
It’s hilarious to watch Dan acknowledge that the reality of communism falls vastly short of the ivory tower theory of communism, yet Dan advocates for a theory that’s failed every time it’s been tried, leaving so much death in its wake.
THEY'RE NOT COMMUNIST, BY DEFINITION.
Dang, you're obtuse.
Read some Marx, so you're not operating from a place of ignorance.
Dan
Craig...
"When private property is taken from some and given to others, that’s literally a loss of freedom."
So, taxation is a loss of freedom?
Again, if you would just answer questions put to you, you'd see the holes in your arguments.
Dan
Reading of Dan's comments shows me more and more how abjectly ignorant of real life he is. He supports communism and Islam, both disastrous for every where they invade.
That seems indisputable at this point.
Yes, taxation is a loss of freedom. At some level it is a necessary loss of freedom, but it is a loss of freedom nonetheless. The higher the taxation, or if the taxation requires selling one's property to pay it, the greater the loss of freedom.
Now, it the case of transforming a non communist nation into a communist nation, the only way for "the people" to own everything is for "the people" to take everything from those who made/own everything. As noted earlier, they call this nationalization to make it sound better, yet somehow governments running businesses never works as well in practice as it does in theory.
What specific questions have I not answered? If you are going to demand that I answer every question you ask, and make these vague, general accusations is it not reasonable that you would hold yourself to the same standard that you demand of me?
I'm confused as to what possible hole there could be in an argument which boils down to (and which you agree with) saying that communism has never worked once in the real world. Am I missing a glorious success of communism somewhere? Is the concept that fantasies and theories are worthless unless they translate into the real world?
Am I mistaken that Marx was basically unemployed for the majority of his adult life and lived by sponging money from rich capitalist relatives and friends?
Let's take this into the real world. Of late the notion of a wealth tax has become popular. Because, in theory, it sounds good to some. But, what does it look like in real life.
1. If my family owns agricultural property worth roughly $2,000,000, and other property and investments worth another $600,000, and someone wants to force us to pay a wealth tax of 5%, where does the money come from to pay the tax?
2. The obvious problem is that the wealth I/we have is tied up in assets which do not represent available cash. Even if I/we were to take every cent we earned on a yearly basis and apply it to the tax bill, it would not be nearly enough to pay the tax. Is it fair and reasonable to take every cent of income earned from privately held assets to pay a percentage of an arbitrary tax on wealth?
3. The obvious answer would be to sell the assets (or parts of them) to pay the tax. But, by forcing this action, the state is forcing me to sell that which I/we rely on for future income which lowers the potential future income. Is that not an example of the state exerting control over private property which I legally own?
4. If this wealth tax was a one time tax, that would be one thing. Yet would not a yearly wealth tax of this nature eventually force me to sell off my private property in it's entirety leaving I/us with zero wealth?
5. Do things like agricultural land and investment always increase in value? Does my/our wealth which is tied up in those things always increase or stay static? If my/our wealth decreases, do I/we get a refund? Do we get the assets that were sold back?
6. Now, this wealth tax doesn't only apply to me/us. So what happens to the value of the assets our wealth is based on if everyone who owns assets like those is forced to sell at the same time? Does that raise or lower the market price/value of those assets?
7. When a communist country nationalizes an industry to give that industry back to "the people", are the people who own the "means of production" fairly compensated for their property?
8. If "the people" "own" the "means of production", how do those "means of production" function to produce the things that an economy is built on?
9. Exactly how does magical fairy tale theory of communism work without some form of government?
What I've done here is to, again, move beyond the theoretical into reality. Especially the reality that the recent spate of communists running under the DSA banner are running on.
So, when a country CLAIMS to be communist (which is really rebranded socialism) we are supposed to ignore that and blindly accept you claiming that communist countries are/were not communist?
Based on this you seem to be suggesting that we ignore the real world evidence that we've seen over the last (roughly) 100 years of actual communists/Marxist/socialist/workers revolutions which have destroyed much more than they've created because you and your definition say so. Why would I not consider that to be incredibly arrogant and presumptuous?
Name one communist (or Muslim) country/government/society which has given the world anywhere close to the level of innovation as capitalist countries have? What is one significant medical breakthrough which has saved lives or significantly improved life or cured any disease which has come from a communist country?
"Well, that depends on who you ask, "
Sure. If you ask someone who is committed to the ideals of communism, it sounds awesome. If you ask someone who's risked life and limb to escape a communist country, they'd disagree. But you can't simply assign one of those opinions as objectively factual, can you?
Can you really assert that communism is objectively the best form of government/society for everyone?
"There's just nothing inherently bad about those ideals.'
That is quite a claim, please provide objective proof.
"None of that is part of the definition of communism."
While it may not be part of the "definition", it is part of the reality of communism. Historically, communists have displaced a government, then reveled in the trappings of wealth they stole, while their subjects lived in a much less palatial manner. Is that not a correct view of reality?
"watching out for the marginalized, engaging in creativity and art. "
Because communist countries were widely known for creativity, art, and elevation of the "marginalized".
"Rubio is just objectively mistaken here."
One more unproven claim from Dan.
" I favor ultimately some form of post-social democracy over either capitalism or communism."
Which is why Dan is spending days and comments arguing in favor of the wonders of theoretical communism instead of explaining what his blueprint for utopia is.
There is so much to deal with here and only limited time. You all have major failures to understand basic reality and language and simple reading comprehension.
Craig:
when a country CLAIMS to be communist (which is really rebranded socialism) we are supposed to ignore that and blindly accept you claiming that communist countries are/were not communist?
IF a word means XYZ
And IF a nation claims to be an XYZ nation and yet
they practice SD14%L (which is NOT XYZ),
THEN they are NOT an XYZ nation.
Basic word meaning, gentlemen.
If a nation claims to be a "christian nation"
and that nation acts in ways that are directly contrary to Christian teachings
THEN that nation is not a Christian nation.
IF a nation claims to be a communist (keeping in mind that communism is an economic system, not a political one) nation
and yet, its economic policies are NOT in keeping with communism by definition,
THEN it's not a communist nation.
That it CLAIMS to be a communist nation does not make it one. Words have meanings.
Basic word understanding.
As to Glenn's nonsensical, fallacious and unsupported attack:
Reading of Dan's comments shows me more and more how abjectly ignorant of real life he is. He supports communism and Islam,
I'm simply noting the definition of words. Noting that there ARE no nations that fit the definition: "a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Me noting that objective reality is not ignorant. It's demonstrating linguistic understanding.
Me noting that there is nothing inherently awful in the actual definition is NOT me defending communism, it's me pointing to word meanings.
Me noting the objective reality that Muslims are not all awful - just like not all Christians (or those claiming to be Christian) are all awful - is NOT me defending ISLAM. It's me noting objective reality.
Y'all have problems with reading comprehension and even a basic high school level grasp of logic and reasoning. If you were in my civics or logic class, I'd probably have to fail you.
"Looking at the definition and the actual meaning of the word, what is troubling, so very troubling to you, that you can't imagine it being seen as a reasonable moral notion?"
The fact that the "people/state" get to decide what is best for me based on what they think I need and what they determine my skills to be and what they determine is the best place to utilize my skills sounds like a nightmare.
"Do you understand that?"
Yes, I understand that somethings that might not be in the dictionary definition of a word, end up being present in the reality of the implementation of the system being defined.
"Is it the case that the idea of shared community is so abhorrent and foreign to you that you can't even imagine someone doing it outside of coercion and corruption?"
No. However, I've seen the historical results of this fantasy as they've worked out in real life. Starting with early attempts to colonize North America to modern day North Korea. I'll grant that it might be theoretically possible on a very small voluntary scale where everyone consistently contributes equally to the good of the community.
"Have you not read the Bible?"
Yes, which is why I find your utopian BS to be so ridiculous. Your attempt to use one isolated text as a proof text to normalize a practice that wasn't ever the norm is pathetic. That you choose to ignore that the passage you abuse is quite clear that people continued to OWN their private property, and voluntarily disposed of it as they saw fit to benefit the small. local community. I've addressed this before, but it's been forgotten or ignored.
"the new public agreement would be that businesses, etc., are communally owned. It's not taking anything."
How do the businesses magically become "publicly owned"?
Are you not aware that many/most businesses in the US are "publicly owned" already?
What is stopping you from living out this ideal in your won life?
"Now have there been some nominally communist nations that were run by fascists and not a free republic?"
Well, yes. Every communist experiment has ended in abject failure. But thanks to Dan for redefining those failures our of the conversation.
"At the very least can you agree that force and taking are literally not part of the definition of communism? "
Those words are not in the definition that you provided, yet taking what others have by force and the threat of force are the historical legacy of communism.
"Who was the more authoritarian in that case, the capitalists or the communist?"
Neither.
"The Beloved Community, the Realm of God, a better world, a healthier, safer world?"
This appears to be a statement followed by a ?, not a question. The problem with the premise behind the question is that not everyone agrees with Dan deciding what these things are and how they look. Let alone the fact that not everyone wants those things in the first place.
"For the sake that hard work is good for the soul?"
Again, this sounds like an unproven claim followed by a ? and as such is really impossible to answer. Maybe this is why Dan does this because it allows him to permanently bitch about his "questions" (which aren't questions" being answered.
"Because it's good to be a role model of hard work for your children and the next generation?"
See above. One more unproven claim followed by a ?.
" Because it's pleasing to help others and do good work?"
I understand the tactic here, but it's idiotic. See above.
"Because doing good work is good for your health and good for your psyche and good for your soul?"
See above.
" Because you believe in the golden rule and hope that someone will also do good work on your behalf just like you would do good work for someone else?"
See above.
I can't answer questions, which are not questions.
"How many reasons do you need?"
It doesn't matter, when your "reasons" are just you projecting your fantasies. Especially given the idiotic punctuation nonsense.
"Again, it's like you don't understand grace or the concept of sacrificial love on behalf of humanity. And You all think that we are the antichrist??"
Well, if you put ?? behind a false claim does that automatically make the false claim a question? But no, not the "antichrist", you simply aren't qualified for that gig.
"You want to show credibility and that you can understand adult reasoning?"
Yes, but not if you think that you are the sole arbiter of the definitions of those things or if I'm required to agree with you in order to do s.
Craig...
"9. Exactly how does magical fairy tale theory of communism work without some form of government?"
It doesn't, not that I've seen, which is one of the reasons I'm wary of the notion of a Communist nation. Again that I'm defending just the difference between what the word means and what it doesn't mean doesn't mean that I'm advocating for the word. I've been quite clear I'm wary of communism as an economic system within a government system. People have a hard time living together in a world. The best chance for communism or some version of something like it is in a small non-state community as opposed to a state-sized government.
Do you all understand that I am not defending communism as an economic system at the national level?
Just as I'm not defending and unregulated capitalism as an economic system at the national level. We've seen the failures there, too.
Dan
"Why are you so weird?"
I am how I was created. I'm not weird I'm a unique human being created in the image of YHWH. I'm not sure how looking at the real world track record of a worldview is weird.
Why are you so arrogant, narcissistic, and stupid?
"What in the name of all that's good and holy are you objecting to?"
Nothing. If you want to obsess over definitions and theories and what sounds good to you, feel free. I prefer to live in the real world where things like evidence, history, and track record get taken into account and I don't appoint myself as the arbiter of things I do not control.
But, you do you. I've given you plenty of space over the years to spout your nonsense with very little restriction on your idiocy, have I not?
Strangely enough Dan constantly lumps people together and demands that we be judged by the worst behavior of people in the group he's assigned us to, yet bitches when we make generalizations based in the reality of the actions of various groups.
1. According to you.
2. 15. Which is more than a "handful or two" especially considering the sheer size of the USSR and China.
3. So?
4. 100% of anything, especially when it involves BILLIONS of people, TENS OF MILLIONS of deaths, DECADES of oppression, and a 100% failure rate seems like plenty big.
"How many times did you have to shoot a basketball towards a hoop before it went in?"
No idea. Of course, the point that seems relevant is the fact that I did make many baskets, while communiass have failed every time.
"More than ten times, I assume?"
Who knows. But again, eventually I succeeded without harming anyone.
"Y'all's problem is y'all defend capitalists who lean towards authoritarianism."
By all means, show me proof of this claim. Specifically where we have ever supported someone becoming "authoritarian".
A POTUS who shares power with the other co-equal branches of government is clearly not "authoritarian". Nor is a POTUS who exercises the constitutional and legal authority that goes with the office. Trump lost one election, and stepped aside. Trump will term limit out in 2 years and will step aside again. Hardly the behavior of an "authoritarian".
"Authoritarian describes a person, government, or institution that demands strict, unquestioning obedience and subordinates individual freedom to a centralized authority. It rejects political plurality, limits civil liberties, and concentrates power in a single leader or small elite who are not constitutionally accountable to the public."
"of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people."
"favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.
of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others"
"Authoritarianism is a method of rule that suppresses political freedoms and civil rights, using various levers of control to shift power from the people to the hands of one ruler or set of rulers."
"demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish:"
Strangely enough, none of these definitions describe Trump.
It took a while, and it was onerous, but I believe that I've answered all of Dan's questions. Including answering "questions" that we not really questions.. It won't matter because Dan will not deal with my answers, nor will he stop making BS claims. Will he answer all of mine in a similar manner? It's doubtful.
"There is so much to deal with here and only limited time."
Which is Dan speak for "I'm not even going to attempt to answer all of your questions, while I continue to demand that you do what I will not.". Or words to that effect,
Likewise, I'm not going to waste time with Dan's self aggrandizing BS.
"Me noting the objective reality that Muslims are not all awful"
Then me noting the reality that NO ONE is saying that "all Muslims are awful" and that Dan is simply responding to his false, made up, is the only appropriate response.
If I was in your civics of logic class, I'd simply parrot your BS back to you to get a good grade, but refuse to actually believe your BS. Indoctrination and demanding compliance with your personal worldview is hardly education.
One whole answer/response.
Yet, you have chosen to not live out this wonderful theory you claim to find attractive. Instead, you live off of the fruits of capitalism, enjoy your private property, and lecture others on how they should conduct themselves.
Actions speak louder than words.
Art, if Trump was authoritarian, we'd know it by now. Yet, he's clearly done nothing more than exercise the constitutional authority granted to the office, and when SCOTUS has ruled against him he's either complied or tried to work through constitutional channels to protest.
Craig, who has allowed that some taxation is a reasonable idea, even if he calls it a "loss of freedom," asked:
If my family owns agricultural property worth roughly $2,000,000, and other property and investments worth another $600,000, and someone wants to force us to pay a wealth tax of 5%, where does the money come from to pay the tax?
That would depend on the specifics. Is the family working for pay? How much are they making? Regardless, the money would come from the family to pay what they owe, just like any other debt.
That you don't like the source of the debt (a wealth tax, in this case) doesn't make it wrong or give you freedom to ignore it or not pay it, just like not liking a fine placed on you when you lost a civil sexual assault case gives you the freedom to ignore it.
Having that tax, IF it were enacted by the people in a responsible manner through the legislative process, means that you either agree to it and pay it OR disagree with it, pay it, and go through the legislative process to see it changed OR disagree with it, pay it, then leave the country to some place that doesn't tax the wealthy so high (in your mind).
Am I mistaken in any way?
Look, we could debate the fiscal and societal soundness of the levels of taxation and unintended consequences and that's what we do in a free Republic. That we can change.
What is MORE difficult to change is, in a Republic that is more "billionaire-friendly" and more anti-regulatory, the way that the rich can legally get away with oppression and harm to others. THAT is why Communism appeals to some, at least to varying degrees: It acknowledges the active harm that is done by the ultra-rich, just the way that the apostle James, the Mother Mary and Jesus his own self acknowledge the harm done by the ultra-rich.
Striking the right balance of freedom, taxation, regulation... that's not an easy thing to do. I suggest that the smart, rational thing to do is to start (as Jesus regularly said) with the poor and marginalized... work for systems that work for THEM, first. Then, when things are working for them in a more equitable manner, then we can watch out for any harm that is happening to the billionaire class.
Where am I mistaken?
Craig:
One whole answer/response.
Oh? It's been a whole half day or so since you gave some answers and asked some questions and I've only had time to deal with one (now two) so far?
Please. You know that's jack-ass level stupid.
Hey, I’m just snarkily lampooning you and how you respond when I don’t immediately answer your questions and the extreme amount of pride you showed for answering one whole question.
Strangely, not a word of acknowledgment for me going back to (re) answer every question you asked. Even the stupid ones.
Craig opined, with zero support:
At some level it is a necessary loss of freedom, but it is a loss of freedom nonetheless.
That might be ONE way of looking at it... It's almost certainly the way the ultra-wealthy would look at it. The children who get to go to school, the homes saved by fire trucks, the disabled who receive support, the communities that are protected from dangerous pollutants, etc, etc, etc... they might find a HUGE amount of freedom in the notion of taxes to watch out for these sorts of things. Some (the hedonists, primarily) might view it as a loss of freedom. Others would rejoice in the freedom that knowing we have a public fire department and so the individual family doesn't have to worry directly with that. The society that benefits from educated children moving into adulthood would celebrate the freedom that comes with that.
You call it a "loss of freedom," I call it - at least potentially - investments in freedom.
Craig, continuing...
The higher the taxation, or if the taxation requires selling one's property to pay it, the greater the loss of freedom.
Prove it. That's certainly a statement you're making there, but you offer ZERO proof to accept the validity of the claim.
Look, let's say that there is a small state with 100 millionaires and 10,000 moderate-to-low income homes. IF the 100 millionaires are taxed at a progressive rate and they end up paying $7 million of the $10 million dollars they accumulate each year, that millionaire household is STILL accumulating $3 million a year - most likely not through any work they're doing, just through investments and other non-labored tactics. That person with ONLY $3 million this year, they have lost very little in the way of freedom. One might argue they lost the freedom to be more hedonistic if they wish, but they're still housed extravagantly, they're still very safe from financial ruin, they still can afford healthcare, their wealth is very likely to retain intact. What freedom have they lost? AND, if they WANT the freedom to NOT be taxed at a progressive rate, they STILL have the freedom to leave and find another nation that doesn't tax as much.
Again, taxation is just like our laws - they're social compacts we make with each other to go along with them for the common good. At any point, one can leave and visit another state if they don't like the rules there.
There's no loss of freedom, not in any meaningful sense.
Society means living in a communal setting with more than one person/one household and one set of desires and concerns. The hedonist, anarchist and sociopath may not care about anyone else, but that's their problem, not anyone else's. A reasonable, morally humane society simply doesn't have to freedom to operate like everyone is their own island.
Where am I mistaken?
Craig:
2. The obvious problem is that the wealth I/we have is tied up in assets which do not represent available cash. Even if I/we were to take every cent we earned on a yearly basis and apply it to the tax bill, it would not be nearly enough to pay the tax. Is it fair and reasonable to take every cent of income earned from privately held assets to pay a percentage of an arbitrary tax on wealth?
That is, INDEED, one of the problems of the ultra-wealthy. One they have that is not shared by the rest of us. "Investing" in more and more real estate or business is indeed one way that the wealthy have avoided paying a fair share of our common wealth. IF the nation decided to tax their stuff at a rate they couldn't afford, they'd need to sell stuff to pay their legal debt (and it would be a legal debt) or go to jail for trying to avoid paying their debts.
Of course, one of the advantages that the very wealthy have long had is to tie any such problems up in court so that they can reduce or avoid all together paying their debts. One of the way that rich oppressors have long legally oppressed. See your president.
I remind you of Jesus' counsel:
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
...Jesus replied, to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Rich fools have long tried to dodge paying their fair share. Consider also Ananias and Sapphira.
Or just consider good common sense and look to your criminally corrupt president as a role model why the rich shouldn't get away with such abuses of privilege.
Craig:
4. If this wealth tax was a one time tax, that would be one thing. Yet would not a yearly wealth tax of this nature eventually force me to sell off my private property in it's entirety leaving I/us with zero wealth?
Sigh. As your wealth went down, presumably so, too, would your tax burden. IF that were happening.
That is, IF we proposed taxing those with more than $100 million in houses (say, 100 $1 million homes) and they actually had no other source of income (unlikely, in today's world) at a 75% rate (meaning they'd owe $75 million in taxes, if my math is right), then maybe they'd have to liquidate 75 or so of those houses to pay the debt they legally owed.
Right?
And then, they'd have "only" $25 million dollars in property tax which, presumably, may have moved them to a lower tax bracket and a lower tax rate. It would all depend upon the details, wouldn't it?
In reality, one of the quirks in our system is that it is very easy for the rich to get richer. And that's NOT because they work harder than the carpenter or the garbage collector or social worker. Indeed, they almost certainly don't, on average. Having some rules in place that tamp down on the tendency for the rich to get richer that STILL lets them remain wealthy seems like a bottom line smart societal move. Presuming that those taxed dollars are being spent wisely and not, for instance, on forever wars or criminal public executions in international waters.
One of the problems in all this discussion is your turning a blind eye to how, as James said, "Is it not the rich who are exploiting you!? Taking you to court? Failing to pay their workers' wages??"
In reality, both capitalism and communism have problematic consequences in unfettered versions of those theories. Can you acknowledge that?
And once and for all, can you acknowledge that I am NOT promoting communism as a good economic system at a state level? You can tell if you read for understanding and see where I have NEVER said that AND the way I have specifically literally said, "I'm not suggesting that."..?
As to the questions you're suggesting you've answered, I've looked back and can't find where you did that, for the most part.
"That would depend on the specifics. Is the family working for pay?"
1. What does that even mean? What a stupid question, nonetheless, I'll try to guess and hope I get close.
2. Everyone in the family is currently employed individuals who pay income taxes on their income, property taxes on the various properties, sales taxes on what they consume, income taxes on the agricultural income. Not to mention the taxes paid by everyone else who makes a living from the agricultural land in question.
3. Are the taxes paid through all of those avenues somehow insufficient?
'How much are they making?"
What in the hell does this have to do with anything? The fact that taxes are already being paid where appropriate is all you need to know.
" Regardless, the money would come from the family to pay what they owe, just like any other debt."
This is what you get when you don't read for understanding and jump to conclusions based on your biases.
"That you don't like the source of the debt (a wealth tax, in this case) doesn't make it wrong or give you freedom to ignore it or not pay it, just like not liking a fine placed on you when you lost a civil sexual assault case gives you the freedom to ignore it."
More of Dan jumping to incorrect conclusions because he failed to read for understanding and was driven to making BS assumptions by his biases.
"Am I mistaken in any way?"
Yes. You are mistaken basing your idiotic response on your assumptions instead of reading before spewing idiocy. Your entire premise (that avoiding the BS tax is the goal), is dealt with in the part you didn't read. When you jump to conclusions, you look stupid.
"Look, we could debate the fiscal and societal soundness of the levels of taxation and unintended consequences and that's what we do in a free Republic."
We could, but it's unlikely given your lustful greed to divest "billionaires" of their wealth.
Not only did you not read (let alone understand) before you spewed idiocy, you also decided that you have the power to take this further off of the topic in my example so you can rant about your pet crap.
Craig, STILL entirely missing the point, said:
What I've done here is to, again, move beyond the theoretical into reality.
And what I've made clear is that, per Rubio's comment, this has ALWAYS been a discussion of the theoretical meaning of Communism, NOT the practice. Rubio, you and I all agree (to varying degrees) that communism doesn't have a good track record at the state level. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION if we all agree. Do you understand that?
The question then, is about Rubio's silly little unsupported claim that communism IN THEORY is a problem. ("Communism does NOT sound good in theory.")
This has ALWAYS been a discussion of communism in theory.
And again, I'll point to some of the specifics of the literal theory:
"From each, according to their ability
To each according to their need."
What is rationally or morally wrong with that principle?
In my family and extended family, and in my church circles, and in my extended community (including at least three communal living situations I've been associated with to varying degrees), those of us with more resources have always been glad to help out those with less - AND we've generally tried exceedingly hard to do so in ways that were reciprocal, NOT about "oh, let me help you, little poor person," but where those with less cash on hand helped those with more cash on hand do the gardening or child care. Win, win, win. It's not about who's paying cash and who's not. It's about a beloved community where we're all on one team, each blessing the other with the resources we have and each being grateful for those blessings.
Much like the early church communal living model.
WHAT specifically is wrong with that principle? Anything?
OR can you admit, Yes, of course, depending on how it's implemented, that is an entirely benign and ideally, even noble principle?
Or, how about this ideal/principle, by definition:
establish a classless, stateless society based on the common ownership of the means of production.
Is there anything inherently wrong with a classless society?
Is there anything wrong with a stateless society? Will "heaven" one day not be a stateless society (as you envision heaven)?
And if we're talking a widget making company, what is inherently wrong with joint ownership of the "means of production" in that company? Are you aware that there are many companies that do this, more or less in the US (and beyond)?
From AI:
"Collectively owned and employee-owned companies often perform better than traditional businesses across several key metrics, including productivity, employee retention, and resilience during economic downturns. Because workers have a direct financial stake in the business's success, these models generally foster higher job satisfaction and lower turnover."
I made this claim, thinking it obvious, but let me follow it up with a question for you:
There's no loss of freedom, not in any meaningful sense.
Do you think the "freedom" to unlimited wealth accumulation is a human right?
I remind you of the famous quote from the naturalist, Edward Abbey:
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell
Hardly a healthy or moral role model.
"That might be ONE way of looking at it... It's almost certainly the way the ultra-wealthy would look at it."
The simple reality is that everyone who pays taxes loses some of their freedom regarding how to spend the money that they earned. That is simply the reality of the situation. That's not a negative or positive response, it's simply a fact. If I earn $100 and $40 is taken for taxes, I have lost the freedom to spend that $40 as I would have wanted.
I do appreciate you continuing to go further and further afield, and to have not asked questions so I don't have to waste my time with idiocy.
"You call it a "loss of freedom," I call it - at least potentially - investments in freedom."
Yes, it is a loss of personal freedom AND an "investment" in the society that we are a part of. I suspect that you'll belabor this obvious point much more before you're done.
"Prove it. That's certainly a statement you're making there, but you offer ZERO proof to accept the validity of the claim."
Using the example I gave. The 5% wealth tax (ignoring that I already did this, but not at the grade school level I needed to) would be @130,000. If the agricultural land doesn't produce $130,000 in profit (remember the taxes already paid on any money that the agricultural land generates), then the only option is to take that money from income (again already taxed) or to sell the agricultural land (or part of it) to pay the tax. The problem is that the "wealth tax" is not based on a number grounded in reality, it's based on theoretical value.
So, if this "wealth tax" is a one time thing, perhaps it can be weathered. If it becomes a yearly tax, then the problem compounds except there is less income (already taxed) to pay the "wealth tax" because the agricultural land is now less that it was. What happens in a bad year? No crops, no income, but still the same amount of agricultural land that is worth less because it didn't produce anything.
Now, second/third order effects. Who buys the land that had to be sold to pay the taxes? Probably one of the big Ag companies, who know why the land is being sold and who offer below market value because they know you have to sell. Which means that big Ag get's bigger and family farms get smaller. Of course, this doesn't just affect one farm, it affects ALL farms. Therefore land values drop, and wealth disappears. How many family farms is an acceptable number to lose to tax "wealth"?
This applies to every single appreciating asset that people own. If you apply this to large privately held companies it'll destroy them, if you apply this to the shareholders of publicly held companies, you'll see an economic collapse that makes 2008 look like nothing. This is what happens when you don't understand wealth, income, and how the economy works.
"That person with ONLY $3 million this year, they have lost very little in the way of freedom."
Who the fuck are you to decide what someone else deserves from their work? Who put you in charge of deciding how much is enough, you smug, insufferable, greedy bastard.
"One might argue they lost the freedom to be more hedonistic if they wish, but they're still housed extravagantly, they're still very safe from financial ruin, they still can afford healthcare, their wealth is very likely to retain intact."
One could also argue that they lost the freedom to endow a cancer wing at a children's hospital, to fund orphanages throughout the world, to invest in new businesses which create new jobs and more taxpayers. Again, who the fuck are you to decide what limits to place on people's freedom? You are literally taking freedom away, and pretending like the loss of freedom is freedom. Moron.
"What freedom have they lost?"
See above. They've lost the freedom to do with the money that they earn whatever they wish. Talk about authoritarian.
"AND, if they WANT the freedom to NOT be taxed at a progressive rate, they STILL have the freedom to leave and find another nation that doesn't tax as much."
1. This is True.
2. Define "progressive rate".
3. Define "fair share".
4. You do realize that the top 5% of earners already pay well more than any possible definition of "fair share".
5. Do you understand that someone like Musk (who is theoretically a trillionaire, and made a bunch of people millionaires) individually pays the taxes established but also employs (directly and indirectly) thousands of people who also pay taxes? Do you have the first clue what the economic damage to the US economy would be if Musk moved all of his companies and employees to another country? Are you truly that ignorant of how the economy works? Do you not understand that confiscating every theoretical dollar of everyone who is a millionaire or above, would operate the US government for less than a year? That doing so would destroy the tax base for decades to come?
"Again, taxation is just like our laws - they're social compacts we make with each other to go along with them for the common good. At any point, one can leave and visit another state if they don't like the rules there."
Which is why we are seeing significant movement of companies out of places like CA and NY and into states like FL and TX. CA is spending money like a drunken sailor AND driving out the very people it wants to tax to pay for the insane spending.
"There's no loss of freedom, not in any meaningful sense."
Who says so? You? Who give you the authority to make these decisions?
"Where am I mistaken?"
Read my specific response above and maybe you'll get a clue. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Craig suggested, mistakenly and without support:
Which is why Dan is spending days and comments arguing in favor of the wonders of theoretical communism instead of explaining what his blueprint for utopia is.
1. I'm noting that there's nothing inherently wrong with the definitional understanding of communism. That is different than "arguing in favor of the wonders of theoretical communism.
2. I have asked you some questions about some of the basic definitional tenets of communism. We'll see how you deal with those questions. (WHICH is not saying you're not answering fast enough, just noting that you haven't answered yet. I've never rushed you for answers... repeating questions in an ongoing conversation is not the same as rushing).
3. Many of the writings on my blog that you've read for decades now are dealing with a blueprint for the Beloved Community.
NOTE: "Utopia" means literally NO-where, and I don't view various pie in the sky suggestions of utopia as the same as the beloved community of God or the Realm of God.
4. Objectively, I've written thousands of words about what this looks like WITH the caveat that the Beloved Community is first and foremost about grace, not legalism. As soon as we start moving towards legalistic solutions to a "utopia," we've started going in the wrong direction.
If somehow you've missed my voluminous writings on the topic, here: Be educated...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=beloved+community
"That is, INDEED, one of the problems of the ultra-wealthy. One they have that is not shared by the rest of us. "Investing" in more and more real estate or business is indeed one way that the wealthy have avoided paying a fair share of our common wealth. IF the nation decided to tax their stuff at a rate they couldn't afford, they'd need to sell stuff to pay their legal debt (and it would be a legal debt) or go to jail for trying to avoid paying their debts."
The sheer idiocy of this is so extreme that I can't even waste the time with it.
However, I'll make the point that in my example, the property in question grows fucking crops that people use to make fucking food you idiot. That farmers farm, raise their families, buy stuff, pay taxes, and all the rest. You and your greedy minions would prefer to see that go away because you want what other people have. But, again, your idiocy is astounding. Your inability to realize that the things you pretend are bad, employ people.
I'm gonna go out on a limp and guess that when you are trying to convince some company to hire one of your clients, that you don't spew this insane BS.
Yes, bankruptcy law has a long tradition in the US legal code and is accessible to every single person in the country regardless of their wealth. Of course Big Ed did a sweet carve out to exempt student loan debt from bankruptcy and stick the taxpayers with that debt.
"Rich fools have long tried to dodge paying their fair share. Consider also Ananias and Sapphira."
Stupid fools, like you, have long gotten away with lying about scripture. The text is quite clear. The property they sold was theirs to do with as they wished, they were under no compulsion to give any of it to anyone. It was their property. What got them killed (which you probably dispute) was lying about what they had done.
Thankfully, there is enough BS that I don't have to waste time with.
Your cluelessness about the fact that democrats are pushing for exactly these kinds of wealth taxes, as we speak, doesn't bode well because conversing with someone who's ignorant on the subject is difficult.
"Right?"
Sort of. The problem is that suddenly dumping hundreds or thousands of luxury properties on the market in a short time will immediately drive the prices down, what complicates the matter further, is that there is no buyer pool for these houses because everyone who could afford them is having the same fucking problem.
Look, i get it, your goal here is to get rid the wealth of people that you've arbitrarily decided have "too much", and you haven't thought through the consequences of your greed.
Thank goodness that the rest of the rant is not worth responding to.
And to the question of "What specifically does it look like to work for the beloved community... not a U-topia, but God's realm on earth as it is heaven, NOW, today..."? I'd cite the words of John Perkins (who in turn cites Chesterton) in one of the posts found in my link of writings on Beloved Community/Realm of God...
Come dream with me. Dream of a fight for something bigger, something more important and worthwhile. We need to fight for justice and peace, for the walls between us to come crashing down.”
“And it requires that we make some uncomfortable confessions. G.K. Chesterton said,
"It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem." I believe this statement can be applied to the lack of reconciliation within the Church today. We've not been able to arrive at the solution because we haven't seen or acknowledged the problem.
The problem is that there is a gaping hole in our gospel. We have preached a gospel that leaves us believing that we can be reconciled to God but not reconciled to our Christian brothers and sisters who don't look like us - brothers and sisters with whom we are, in fact, one blood.”
“If we have been silent and have chosen to ignore the mistreatment of others in the past, we should begin to speak up and challenge injustices. If we were racist and bigoted in our speech and actions, there should be a radical change that is observable. If we have been angry and spiteful toward the other, there should be a radical change that is observable.
And, yes, if we have an abundance of wealth and we have the opportunity to use this blessing to encourage those we have previously been prejudiced against, we should open our hands in Christian love and brotherhood. We should tear down the walls that have separated us for so long.”
“Throughout Scripture we read about God's concern for people who are vulnerable or suffering - the poor, the widows and orphans, the foreigners in the land, and so on. All Christians should feel a sense of calling to where there is pain in our society.”
Like that, for one thing. THAT is what working towards the Beloved Community looks like.
Craig:
I'll make the point that in my example, the property in question grows fucking crops that people use to make fucking food you idiot. That farmers farm, raise their families, buy stuff, pay taxes, and all the rest. You and your greedy minions would prefer to see that go away because you want what other people have. But, again, your idiocy is astounding.
Educate yourself:
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2025-05/ILR-110-Thomas.pdf
I fully support attempts at reducing idiocy.
Craig, missing the point, said:
The property they sold was theirs to do with as they wished, they were under no compulsion to give any of it to anyone. It was their property.,/I>
Indeed. The wealthy using their wealth to benefit themselves. What Jesus, James and Mary might call "rich fools." Sort of like those who'd vote for an objectively hedonistic and corrupt billionaire thinking he could be a good leader and not simply use his wealth to benefit himself.
But hey, at least you're giving... It's just that you're giving your wealth (and all of our wealth) to billionaires to enable them to be even bigger billionaires.
The philosophy of a cancer cell, indeed.
"Craig, STILL entirely missing the point, said:"
My thread, my post, my blog, and you have the arrogance to think that you get to decide what "the point" is.
"Do you understand that?"
I understand that you have an almost pathological need to keep the reality of communism as far as possible from your pollyannaish dictionary definition. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the reality, just that you desperately want to.
"The question then,"
Is not for you to decide or decree.
"What is rationally or morally wrong with that principle?"
Asked and answered. But I'll start with this, who decides what someone's abilities are worth and who decides what someone's needs are? Do the poorest people in the US need smart phones, large screen TV's, cable/satellite/streaming, A/C, multiple cars, taxpayer funded junk food? Need, really?
"In my family..."
Self serving, bragging, anecdotal, BS.
"WHAT specifically is wrong with that principle? Anything?"
As there was no specific "early Church living model", I have no way to answer these questions. That the one passage in Acts was not describing communism, nor was it prescriptive, has already been dealt with.
"OR can you admit, Yes, of course, depending on how it's implemented, that is an entirely benign and ideally, even noble principle?"
Or, I can point to the fact that "according to how it's implemented" negates the point I think you were trying to make.
"Is there anything inherently wrong with a classless society?"
No, there is nothing wrong with purple unicorns either. You can fantasize all you want. It's the use of force/coercion where problems arise.
"Is there anything wrong with a stateless society? Will "heaven" one day not be a stateless society (as you envision heaven)?"
Well, you're pretty desperate to go further and further off topic. But to make a point. In theory, no. Actually as "heaven" is often referred to The Kingdom of YHWH, and not everyone who ever lived will be there, it seems pretty much like a two state Kingdom.
"And if we're talking a widget making company, what is inherently wrong with joint ownership of the "means of production" in that company? Are you aware that there are many companies that do this, more or less in the US (and beyond)?"
Nothing is preventing anyone from raising the capital and starting/running a company. But you're kind of an idiot on these things, so maybe you were unaware that individuals choosing to pool their wealth to buy/start a company is capitalism.
"Collectively owned and employee-owned companies often perform better than traditional businesses across several key metrics, including productivity, employee retention, and resilience during economic downturns. Because workers have a direct financial stake in the business's success, these models generally foster higher job satisfaction and lower turnover."
Sure they do in a capitalist economic system. Apples and oranges again.
"I made this claim, thinking it obvious, but let me follow it up with a question for you:"
Because demanding that I answer your follow up questions to a claim I've already addressed while you've ignored multiple questions today is a perfectly reasonable request in your narcissistic little brain.
"Do you think the "freedom" to unlimited wealth accumulation is a human right?"
I think that the freedom for people to take their YHWH given gifts and talents and to use those in ways that provide value for others who voluntarily choose to pay for the product or service they provide should not be arbitrarily limited by some autocrat like you. Arbitrarily placing a cap on the ability of someone to provide something people are willing to pay for seems to infringe on both "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".
Rent control comes to mind as a particularly heinous practice along these lines which actually harms those it is intended to help.
So our continually growing federal government is actually a cancer according to some random guy.
Good to know that you're wasting time on this instead of answering my questions.
This is absolutely nothing new and I'm not wasting time with it. Of course, it's not answering questions either.
It's 3:01 Central. I'll deal with Dan's last to bits of idiocy and then need to go to work.
I want to note that since Dan had his hissy fit about me not answering questions, I went back and made sure I hadn't missed any as well as expanding on some that I'd answered before.
As of the typing of this, Dan hasn't acknowledged this reality nor has he shown me the courtesy of answering all of the questions I've asked.
At this point, due to that reality, and the fact that he hasn't said anything new or intelligent in quite some time, and comments that hit after 3:01 today might be aborted.
Same old BS, nothing new here.
If you are trying to reduce idiocy, then perhaps a paper that was dealing with the type of wealth tax proposed in CA, a tax system in England and rising property taxes in the US.
Excellent job of either missing the point entirely, or simply deciding that you were going to spew whatever you wanted regardless.
If you're going to proof text something to make a point, then at least use the whole thing.
Did YHWH strike down Ananias and Sapphira for their actions?
I’m still deciding whether or not an abortion is necessary, but Dan whining that I won’t time stamp the questions he’s not answered, when he wouldn’t do the same in his hissy fit is not helping his case. I’m finding that Dan doesn’t like it when his standards are applied to him.
Apparently in Dan’s narcissistic little brain, I’m required to sort through every comment in the thread to answer questions I “missed”, then to do the same for him.
I think that an abortion is going happen.
Dan’s eisegesus on Ananias and Saphira is that them dying immediately after being confronted with their lies is just an unlucky coincidence, but that their deaths had absolutely no correlation with their lies. Then he goes into some extratextural nonsense about how A&S were under some obligation to sell their stuff and give a specific amount to the Jerusalem church, even though the text explicitly contradicts that.
If I do abort it’ll be to save Dan the embarrassment of his idiocy being posted for anyone to see.
If I don’t it’ll be to open him up to ridicule.
Apparently the assignment was too confusing for Dan and he chose to bitch about a question I DID answer instead of acknowledging my time in sorting through his questions to answer them. If you listen you can hear the vacuum cleaner sucking the dismembered remains of his comment out of moderation.
Re: "Hissy fit about not answering questions..." Again, I'm not sure what questions you think you've answered. Perhaps point out a time stamp where that happened. I looked through and didn't see any that stood out to me as answers to my questions. If you did, good.
Craig:
Did YHWH strike down Ananias and Sapphira for their actions?
Not according to the text.
The text:
Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
When Ananias heard this,
he fell down and died.
And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.
There's literally no cause of death mentioned. I don't think the cause of death is the point of the story.
The point of the story was that the church had engaged in many of them selling property and sharing the proceeds with the communal church with the point being that those with the capacity to give could share with those without the capacity to give. And they were sharing their resources. A BENEFIT for A and S, potentially.
Now, when they secretly kept part of their wealth and resources and still took advantage of the shared goods that the church was sharing with each other, they then were PROFITING off the poor, stealing from the poorer ones. It was a case of the rich abusing the poor and we know what James, Mary and Jesus make clear on that point.
Why do you ask?
Not ready to fire up tne scalpel and vacuum yet, but maybe.
Dan’s dodging whether or not A&S were struck down for lying. Because using the process of elimination yields nothing for him.
He is convinced that the silence regarding why they died is enough for him to reach a conclusion. Even though his conclusion disagrees with the actual text.
It seems like Dan has no problem with this “crime” being punished by an instant death penalty, but since he’s not answering questions, we’ll probably never know.
Dan's conclusion also seems to be that the lie wasn’t the problem, but what they lied about. Which seems strange that some lies are punished more harshly than others.
This is the problem with building your theology on out of context proof texts.
Dan pretends he knows Chilean history, but in fact, he just repeats a false narrative that many...mostly his kind...take for granted is true. It is not.
"WHERE, specifically, in that definition are the words, FORCE and "TAKE THINGS..."??"
How do they "aim" to achieve their goals? Even if the people are foolish enough to accept the premise, the reality will result in many coming to believe a huge mistake was made and seek to reverse the decision. Now what? Will those who promote the communist system simply allow what they've achieved to be reversed democratically? Where has that happened before (except Plymouth Colony and perhaps even those early Christians from the Book of Acts)?
"Me noting the completely CONTEXTUAL observation that not only were A/S lying, but they were doing so in a way that profited them in this system designed to be about sharing, NOT taking."
While I'm likely gonna abort the comment this came from, I did want to address this gem. I'll simply note what the text clearly and unambiguously says.
" Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
It seems pretty clear that the property and the money from it's sale were the private property of A&S and that they were free to do with that property and the proceeds as they wished. There was no expectation that they sell, none that the give all of the proceeds to the church, and none that would have prevented them from keeping all of the money for themselves. The text itself unambiguously says that them profiting from the sale (although it doesn't say that they did profit from the sale) was perfectly fine. The text also does not mention a "system designed to bring about...". Dan is clearly taking liberties with what the text says where he can twist the text to support his hunch, yet retreating to a woodenly literal reading of the text when it doesn't support his hunch.
We're still left with the bizarre happenstance of the deaths of A&S. Now the text doesn't explain in minute detail what happened (as if to a small child), yet the text does clearly suggest that their deaths were a direct result of lying to YHWH (per the text). This seems clearer with S because she's told that they just carried her husband's room temperature corpse out of the building, and that hers will be next.
" The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
So Peter predicts her death, but we have no idea what could possibly have happened because the text gives us absolutely no clues.
Dan could sincerely believe that YHWH did not cause these deaths, and it seems clear that nothing would change his mind because it's not written in the text in words of two syllables or less.
However, the implication in Dan's position is that Dan has absolutely no problem with YHWH striking two people down because they lied about not providing for the "poor". Yet the notion that YHWH could have been reacting to the lie "to God" couldn't possibly be the case.
Remember, in Dan's construct, lying is a "minor sin" so death seems excessive for a "minor sin" based on Dan's convoluted matrix of how sin and punishmen
Dan likely did a quick google search on Chile and cherry picked what he thought would be useful.
Dan doesn’t seem to understand that the very nature of a government or political/economic philosophy involves using force or coercion to ensure compliance. That doesn’t always mean oppression. The US absolutely uses force/coercion to force people to pay taxes, it’s not voluntary. That doesn’t mean that it’s bad to punish those who don’t pay, just that force/coercion are part and parcel of a governmental/economic philosophy.
If, in Dan’s commie paradise, one guy bucks the system and opens a store it seems inevitable that force/coercion would be used to align that person with the governing/economic philosophy.
Simple deduction tells us that there are only a couple of options to explain the timing af A&S deaths. They were either unfortunate coincidences, or it was YHWH intervening. When you add the fact that Peter told S that she would be dying soon (even of she didn't quite know what he meant, we do in hindsight) it becomes difficult to conclude anything but YHWH intervening.
"Do you think the "freedom" to unlimited wealth accumulation is a human right?"
It IS a human right!
Art.I tend to agree, yet also acknowledge that the right comes with limits on how that wealth is acquired.
But everyone absolutely has the right to provide a product or service and make as much money as possible from providing it, and to use that money however they choose (within the bounds of legality).
That Dan doesn't like what he calls "hedonism" is immaterial, we don't function based on Dan's likes and dislikes. I'll admit that boat watching in Lauderdale makes you wonder about the "morality" of some of the boats, but that isn't to suggest that I should be able to prevent people from buying those boats. Let's also not forget that many people are employed in building those boats which helps the economy and tax base.
"I looked through and didn't see any that stood out to me as answers to my questions. If you did, good."
If you'd have looked, you;d have seen them.
(Makes vacuum cleaner sucking noises as one more comment gets aborted.)
Art,
"No, Dan. I do not fantasize about kicking you repeatedly in your lady bits...."
For someone who lives and dies with analogies crafted to force the response Dan wants, he sure doesn't like anyone else using analogies. Especially with reference to his family.
2. Yet THWY has provided an avenue for redemption and restoration while we are alive. The casting out happens after death. Even disfellowshipping someone is supposed to be done with the intent of restoring the relationship, not punishing.
The blood sacrifice of Jesus was the final sacrifice in the system established by YHWH to deal with atonement for sin. After Jesus said "tetelestai", no further sacrifices were needed. To separate Jesus' death from the sacrificial system is a mistake.
3. Dan clearly is grasping for excuses to prevent himself from providing the discipline that should be provided. Which might include removing the child from the home temporarily or permanently. If mental illness is involved, does not the parent have some responsibility for failing to get treatment, or failure to do what is necessary to keep the peace in the home?
Art,
As you note, Jesus was clear about the "narrow way", and in Dan's favorite proof text was also clear about the fate of the goats, to name two examples that show that universal salvation was never an option. There are more, of course, and Dan, of course. will ignore or dismiss them because he has the "real" meaning of those texts.
I went ahead and fired up the vacuum and got out the scalpel one more time. I addressed everything of substance in Dan's comment and saw no reason to tp post it.
I'll note that it's been a couple of days now since his hissy fit, that I spent a lot of time making sure I'd answered everything, and Dan has done nothing be expect me to lead him to the answers.
Dan should know what he needs to do in order to keep his comments from being aborted, which is really no big deal because they're not really comments with commenthood until after they're published, right? Whether he'll do what he needs to, or slink away, who knows.
“Most people who read ‘The Communist Manifesto’ probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of ‘the workers.’”
— Thomas Sowell”
“Capitalism is not "paying workers less than the value of their labor." That assumes labor has some objective value independent of the business, capital, risk, management, tools, timing, consumer demand, and the fact that many ventures fail.
If workers were automatically entitled to the full value of whatever is produced, then they would also be responsible for the losses when the business loses money. Socialists never make that argument.“
Imagine vacuum noises.
I was embracing grace by assuming the question was concerned only with legitimate, legal/moral/ethical methods of wealth accumulation.
I'm not giving "my wealth" to anyone I don't want to have it. The wealthy CREATE wealth. They don't need mine (such as it is). Dan doesn't understand any of this, and being a marxist thinks the wealthy are evil people. Far more evil are those who label them as such without having lifted a finger to become wealthy themselves so as to demonstrate how the wealthy should give away all they've busted their asses to acquire. That is, those like Dan.
Still not clear as the motivations of A & S are actually given. All we know is they lied about how much of the sale price they gave. This suggests the "lie" was that they gave it all, with the motivation being both not reducing so much of their personal wealth, while marketing themselves as totally self-sacrificial. It would be like someone who worships where tithing is the expectation of all congregants, and this someone claims to give 10% every week, but only gives 5%. This is what I think the "lie" was and it was unnecessary, since there was no expectations of any kind listed....only that people were sharing as they felt compelled.
But...I don't want to get lost in idle speculation. What's more clear is that God ended them for lying. We can deduce this from Peter lamenting that Ananias lied to God. Dan wants to call their immediate deaths a remarkable coincidence because he doesn't believe God, Jesus or Jesus's Apostles performed miraculous acts.
I did a quick Google search of my own and found an extremely lengthy and detailed explanation of that era which stretches across three posts...each one very, very long. The very point which provoked it was the claim of American interference. But as Dan does with the Contra issue, he ignores the interference and support by established commie powers like Russia, which was ongoing for some time.
2. Casting out from the community follows attempts to restore the offending party. That is, if they persist...which is what makes them unrepentant...they remain outside the community for the duration of their rebellion.
That is such a great example of the ignorance of people like Dan. If you look at Musk and the people that are directly employed by his companies, the people indirectly employed by his companies, the amount of economic activity generated by his companies, and the total amount of taxes paid from all of that, the numbers would be staggering. By reducing Musk to simply a source of funds for progressive BS instead of acknowledging the vast economic impact that comes from what he does (let alone the fact that Space X virtually is the entire US space program), you simply stoke greed. To look at only one side of the equation (wealth), without looking at the other side (economic impact, employment, investment, losses) presents a distorted picture.
Yes, disfellowshipping should be a last resort after the person is unrepentant. But, it should only last (as you note) until repentance.
The problem is that when we talk about "casting out", it can also mean the fate of the unrepentant after the final judgement. Which is an entirely different situation.
Dan is the blame America first guy, for sure. First Russia, now China, have been involved in interfering with governments in the Western Hemisphere since the '50s, but apparently that isn't ever a problem for Dan.
Obviously the motivation is not spelled out, but I don't see how it is relevant. They slod a property, gave part of the proceeds to the church, lied about what part of the proceeds they gave, and died. It is abundantly clear to everyone but Dan that they were under no compulsion to sell the property, nor were they under any compulsion to give 100% of the proceeds to the church. It was clearly their property to dispose of as they wished, and the proceeds were theirs to use as they saw fit.
It boils down to them lying about their gift. We could probably guess that they did so to gain status and praise for their generosity, but we don't know for sure.
Yes, their deaths were directly related to their lying to YHWH, and Peter's prediction of S dying bears that out. Dan seems to object to the concept of people being punished in Hell, but seems to think these two deserved what they got because they didn't help "the poor" enough.
Insanity.
Post a Comment