Socialism anyone?

What matters in life?

Well, there's something to be said for this although it is not what I am advocating. Agrarianism is not necessarily that everyone is a farmer. However, it does embody ideals of self-sufficiency, self-responsibility, self-restraint, and self-determination. Quality of life is more important than quantity of life. In other words, wealth and abundance does not bring meaning or purpose to life. The richest Americans, according to their own account, are not happy. Their greed has grown into megalomania--it's a constant push for bigger and bigger and more and more.

Scripture clearly teaches that godliness with contentment is great gain. We have lost contentment. The irony is that we have more and more meanwhile enjoying it less and less. Yes, I am living out my philosophy. I walked away from the rat race to a lower economic existence. I had the opportunities and turned them down. I am not speaking in theory. For me, goodness, contentment and quality of life are more important than wealth, power and prestige. What matters to you?

 

Or the rich guy could have decided not to start any business, then all those people he employed would have no jobs, and now everyone is poorer than they would be otherwise, including the guy who could've been rich had he started the business in the first place. You need to add more nuance and less sweeping generalizations to your arguments.

 

Ok, you lost me Paid. You need a better ambassador for agrarianism than yourself. Of course, I've yet to meet one on the Internet using a PC, and I've yet to meet one where the discussion doesn't devolve into haughty pronouncements of one's abandonment of the "rat race" and the evils of greedy, capitalist pigs.

 

Read my book.............................

I'm glad that you asked! No, I am not a libertarian. I am a Southern Agrarian. For the past year or so, I have been intensely involved in researching, thinking, and writing in this area. Here are some quick thoughts.
1. I am opposed to government regulation, which is not the answer. However, even Milton Friedman agreed that some control is necessary. I am for the minimal amount. We do need laws preventing predatory capitalist practices. I mean the LBO and the buying of asset-rich companies to liquidate their assets with the resulting bankruptcy and loss of jobs. Furthermore, I favor tougher bankruptcy laws. Lenient bankruptcy allows reckless and irresponsible behavior that negatively impacts the rest of us.
2. The people must be educated to discern the issues, especially the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Even on the conservative side we are reduced pretty much to quoting cliques. It relates to one’s worldview but most people don’t have a conscious worldview. People must buy into this free market philosophy before it will work. This is what happened over two hundred years ago at our founding but things have slipped a little since then.
3. We must return to principle over policy. Today’s debates rage over policies, which are as changeable as the wind. It is not always clear which policy is the best, depending on circumstances, but principle can be clear and precise. I believe and teach the following principles: limited government, free market economics with moral/ethical restraint, individual liberty, law based on truth, a responsible and educated citizenry, and decentralized government.
4. Citizens must act responsibly with a view to the larger good of the country and their neighbors as well as their own benefit. The common man has imitated the extravagant and unsound economic policies of the capitalists. We are awash in debt. If the average man had saved, as our parents did, we would not be in as dire economic straits.
5. We must go back and articulate the conservative philosophy for a new generation who do not know Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, et. al. Also, we must resolve some of the unresolved issues in conservative philosophy.
6. Our view of law must change. We have lost our view of law founded on truth—universal, timeless, immutable, and encompassing principles. Today, law is a sociological function of what the community believes.
There are really so many other facets that I cannot even begin to cover here in limited space and time. However, I am proposing a radical return to the basics—the basic philosophical principles of our American Republic. These, IMHO, have degenerated into cliques or obscured by the materialism of our age. It means that we begin at the bottom again and build on our way up. That’s what the founding fathers did. This is what I am doing—thinking, researching, and writing. If I can only persuade one and he persuades another and …………………………………….

From a proactive standpoint, I favor a strong third party movement to pull both major parties back into line. In the prevailing reassessment of George Corley Wallace and the American Independent Party, political scientists see his impact exceeding those who were elected President during his era. In other words, his third party movement pulled both parties, especially the Republican Party, to the right.

The question is whether the people have lost their moral compass. If materialism is stronger, then we have lost our country and way of life. Liberty always begins at grassroots and moves upward, never the other way. It is the citizenry who will determine where our future lies. On the other hand, I do recognize the power of a sovereign God.

What do you think?

 

Indebted to the rich? How amusing!

If the rich guy did not start any business then his wealth would be static. Rich people start businesses to make more money, not to give people jobs. Furthermore, I am not ranting against profits. However, the whole matter hinges on how these profits are earned. There’s great temptation in wealth. Read the Bible: the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Capitalism opens the door and justifies greed and covetousness. Now, how can a Christian justify such?

Wealth feeds greed and it grows. With a justifying capitalism (i.e. competition and survival of the fittest), the temptation is stronger than most capitalists can bear. Whereas the capitalist benefited his employees by starting his company, he soon begins exploiting them trying to wring more profits to satisfy his urge and then leaves them jobless when he moves his operation overseas to use cheap child labor. There are a few businessmen who operate with moral/ethical principles in view. I know of textile mill that had a reputation of no layoffs during slack times.

Now, I’ve tried responding to your questions, why don’t you try answering mine? Do you believe that capitalism should be left free to exploit whatever opportunities arise? Are there any moral/ethical principles limiting capitalistic action. If so, what? Who enforces these? Are LBOs ethical? Should capitalists be allowed to raid and bankrupt companies for their assets with the attending loss of jobs? If not, how do you prevent it?

If you don’t answer the others, please answer the following:
With tax rates and interest rates at the lowest in decades, what has caused the economic mess that we now face? Who is responsible?

 

Balanced view

It is not always all or none situation. Corporations tend toward amoral activity because they have no soul. Proprietorship involves a human being who makes moral/ethical choices. Corporations may be workable if the officers are accountable for their decisions. Size, however, as with government becomes a problem in moderating the excesses. I prefer partnerships replacing corporations. Automakers, such as BMW, do this effectively with suppliers. The concept could be expanded and modified if people were committed to a position of principled ethical behavior over beneficial behavior. We need to reclaim the high ground of doing right over immediate rewards and benefits.

I am not libertarian, but conservative. The conservative recognizes law based on foundationalism.

Furthermore, I think you are confusing the idea of modernity and modern. Agrarians may reject modernity but not necessarily things modern. We are not living in the Dark Ages although we have intentionally chosen a philosophy and life that reflects a passion for things human and spiritual over materialism. We use material things as long as they improve our quality of life without cluttering it with unnecessary quantity (The best time management seminars are advocating the uncluttering of one’s life. J ) Technology is not evil of itself but it has it temptations. Sadly, our ability to exert self-control over technology seems to be lacking. The machine, in turn, controls us, more than it is controlled by us.

 

Okay, but you're stereotyping. The nature of our medium limits the substance of our dialogue. It is hit and run. One cannot in the space of five minutes type a readable and coherent philosophy delineating all points of his views. Yes, I have spent my life doing what I considered to be the most good and pleasing to God. I could have done other things but I chose to focus on quality experiences rather than financially rewarding ones. I really don’t know why this pricked you but nothing should be inferred as a criticism of those who chose differently.

My thinking is this. It is one thing to profess a viewpoint but it much more convincing to live it. I like the old Jewish concept that an idea is not one’s own until it is incorporated into his life. Talk should match the walk.

Furthermore, I call greed by its name. I don’t know what else one can call it. If you want to quibble about haughty, then I suggest we discuss paranoia. Being a psychometrist, I am better equipped to discuss this. Now, did I detect some insinuation in your post? Maybe I’m being paranoid. No, I’m fencing with you.
Hey bro, let’s debate the ideas, not play games.

If my ideas stink, then please tell which one. Why? Now, where did I go wrong?

 

These entire paragraphs are nothing but stereotyping. Opinion & conjecture, completely devoid of facts. In my bible, the thrifty were rewarded, the horders called evil.

Corporate tax rates in America are the highest in the developed world. Why have you ignored that fact ?

And I would say the "house the poor" mentality of our welfare based cities are the cause of a lot of what we face now. The lazy, & the willingness to punish the rich just for being rich have a lot to do with it as well.

 

U.S. corporate income taxes allow more deductions with a higher tax rate. Other developed countries' corporate income taxes allow fewer deductions with a lower tax rate.

In other words, the U.S. taxes a smaller base at a higher rate. Other countries tax a larger base at a lower rate.

 

I'm curious to know what are the benefits of communism? I can't seem to think of any benefits unless you are amongst those that are in the government. If you are among the people, the government controls every aspect of your life. Tell me that you can find a "benefit" in that.

 

Paid, I wish I had to to address all the issues you've touched on. But since I don't, let me just give a summary advice. Let's take the good aspects of agrarianism and incorporate them into the culture in which we live. Reality says we're never going back to what it once was.

By the way, I've been through the Southern Agrarian movement and back out again. I used to be a member of some group - I don't remember the name now - I think the guy's name was David Rockford that was the head of it. Anyway, Southern Agrarianism espouses a wonderful, romantic ideal, but does not deal with economic realities.

For one thing, a people will not survive if they do not progress beyond farming as a base of their economy. As the population grows, land becomes more scarce, driving the price of land ever higher. The number of people fed per acre must increase, which requires a matching efficiency in production.

In simple terms, if it takes let's say 100 acres to produce enough material and income for you to live and support your family, then your adult children will need their own 100 acres to support themselves and their families. If you have four sons, and all your neighbors have four sons, then in one generation land has increased in scarcity four-fold. So what? Somebody's going to have to get a job in town because land is eventually going to be downright unavailable.

But this is actually a good thing because as labor becomes more available for manufacturing and services, those goods and services become more affordable. Everyone benefits. The capitalist that owns the factories are rewarded for their initiative and risk with profits, and workers receive a wage, and the people have more stuff. Stuff they need like blankets, clothes, water, electricity, and so on. While life in a factory certainly is not as desirable as the farm life, the reality is that factories make our lives better. If it were not for wealthy capitalists reinvesting profits into development of more consumer goods, we would not be able to hold this conversation on a thing called a computer through a thing called the internet.

But I agree that agrarian society is an ideal that we should strive for. People should be as close to the land as they can be. Even urbanites that have no particular affection for things rural would benefit in ways they do not perceive. But agrarian economics is a pipe dream. It ain't happenin bro!

Now listen brother, I think you are right about a lot of what you say, but you're taking it too far. Glean what you can apply and let the rest go.

Pointing out the abuses of evil men in a capitalistic system does not prove that the system itself is corrupt. However, I agree that government as failed to do its job and control the corruption in the system. If you can figure out a way to solve that problem without a violent revolution, I'll be glad to support it.

 

What JD said.

 

Meaningful dialogue?

Pure gloss. You failed to engage a single issue except to make a statement about corporate tax rates. So, what does it mean in relation to the bigger picture? Friend, you are spewing the pabalum of a dozen witless talk show hosts and I had hoped to engage a thinking person in a meaningful conversation.

 

Thanks for the advice but I don't think you comprehend the situation. I really don't need to be patronized. I can stand on my own two feet.

 

We don't like socialism or communism and, probably, many other "isms" because there are no net benefits.

 

There should not be any corporate income tax. It employs too many tax accountants and lawyers and leads to decisions based on taxes rather than true value. It does, however, encourage corporations to locate outside the US for more favorable tax treatment so I can understand why liberals like it. The owners of the corporation - the stock holders - should pay all the income tax on the earnings they make. However, they already do that on top of the corporation itself which is double taxation and the socialists like that very much even though it's illegal!

 

Yeah, and yer just brimmin' with good sense. Facts, too. You have shown nothing but speculation, and maybes. So I guess we're done. Fine with me.

Long live the biblical system of capitalism.

 

Another one for the "Ignore" button, I guess. :laugh:

 

How do you judge a system?

Yes, you're probably correct in your assertion. However, I question whether this is the way things ought to be. Behind every system is a philosophy or value system. In the terms of Aristotle, it is what the community believes to be the "good" or have highest value (see Politics, Book I). My contention is that the "good" perceived by a capitalist mindset is antithetical to Christian teaching. Whereas Scripture recognizes that every man seeks his own interest, it admonishes the Believer to put his neighbor’s interest on the same level as his own (i.e. “love thy neighbour as thyself”).

How does this play out in business? It simply means that business decisions are made with others’ interest in mind. The profit motive is no longer the sole driving force. By promoting capitalism, we give assent to all kinds of oppression and financial wrongdoing. My argument all along has been that we can sustain a free market economy with personal liberty, individual responsibility, a sound and prosperous market, and compassionate benevolence without government interference but some indoctrinated individuals can’t get past the C word.

Some argue that this is not practical but it depends on the citizenry. A free market economy is not practical in some worldviews. The challenge is to reach the minds of people and change their thinking. The problem is that most folks have been brainwashed to see two choices—socialism or capitalism. They’re afraid to embrace new ideas and think outside of their own safe intellectual parameters. To me, it makes little difference whether one is a brainwashed socialist or a brainwashed capitalist; he is a programmed serf nonetheless.

In sum, we ought to judge isms by their beliefs system rather than their benefits. Communism does benefit those in the Party.

 

Wrong! Through capitalism we provide opportunity to all people to earn their own keep. We do not restrict them for sharing their wealth in whatever way they desire even if only by offering gainful employment to others as a share of their own quest for a better life. We do still regulate conduct according to law and we do still seek justice when someone is wronged. We just don't use the government to enforce financial equality among all people nor give the non-contributors a free ride through the evils of socialism or communism. Capitalism works very well compared to all other economic systems! It has built in incentive to keep it going. But capitalism is not a replacement for Christianity and does not relieve the Christian of obligations to follow God's laws and Christ's example. Government can destroy capitalism but it can not destroy Christianity. It is up to individuals and the Church to assist those less fortunate in life but to do so for the glory of God and with an eye on building self-reliance among them. Socialism works against this by making people dependent wards of the State with an incentive to remain in that status. Tyrants like this system because it creates many willing subjects. What needs fixing in America, aside from Christian revival, is the mass retrenchment of government - especially the federal government - from its daily offensive protrusion into our lives. Give me capitalism - even with its faults - any day over the likes of what other nations have endured. What looms before us now is the potential to bankrupt America for generations to come with massive spending and subsequent taxation. The danger is the creation of a crisis so great that liberty itself will be suspended to deal with the self generated emergency.