Free Enterprize/Democracy?

Aren't most Baptist churches governed by a democratic process?

Sinful man loves politics because he can hide behind it.

 

Good point. But those churches that are governed by a single man tend to experience the same sinfulness, don't they?

 

Wow. That's kinda funny. Mainly because the opposite is COMMUNISM, which is supposed to be EVIL. The other alternative is socialism, which could sometimes be ok, but remember that this is what Hitler was trying to push. But yeah, basically it sounds like you are pro-socialism, at least some form of it.

 

The problem with Theocracy is that this country was founded on beliefs that it should be separate. Actually, this is a good time to bring this up because tomorrow we will celebrate Thanksgiving. The tradition of Thanksgiving came from the Pilgrims. Do you know anything about them? They were Separatists, fleeing England because they didn't believe that church and state should be combined as the way it was with the Church of England with King James behind the helm. If you partake in Thanksgiving and meet up with family and have a nice meal, you are celebrating these ideas. You can't say that we should go back to the way that England had it yet turn around and continue the Thanksgiving tradition and celebrate what the Pilgrims stood up for.

 

I saw what you said, and I still think that you're hinting at socialism being the answer. Consider the points you made then read this definition:


Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.

www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html


You can't have private property without every man being for himself. You were complaining about the ruling class by pointing out the money raised by the parties and also complained about the CEO's making tons of cash... socialism was designed to minimize everything that you were complaining about.

Not all forms of socialism should be considered bad, it just gets a bad reputation because of Hitler and stuff, so I wouldn't necessarily be ashamed to admit that you believe that some form of socialism is better. I mean, England and many other countries in Europe are socialist. Of course gas is well over $5 a gallon at most all of them, even well over $7 I think in Scandanavia. So I guess my point is that "every man for itself" seems evil, but the alternative is to have the government meddle in absolutely everything, which will help many people, yet at the same time it will absolutely hinder the high performers severely. Depends on what side of the fence you are on to figure out if you are for or against it. The poorer people always say that's great, but at the same time, there's a reason why the high earning musical artists of England moved over to America, they get hit up like crazy, they have to support the poor folks.

 

You may be right, but still, what is the alternative to free enterprise? Think about it, if you take that away, then that means you must have a governing body that forces free enterprise to not exist, therefore quickly turning into one of the systems that you say that you are not for, yet it's inevitable.

 

Often times, yes, but the stupidity of some of the poor people contributes to it just as well or more. I mean, if I offer an unnecessary service in a business of mine, what's keeping a poor man from obtaining my services? It's none of my business if he can afford it or not, it's not my place to see if he's sacrificing the good of his family to obtain my service, I should not check to make sure that his finances are in order and that he's not borrowing money to obtain these services. No, the fact of the manner is that I offer a service and he pays for it to obtain it. End of story. Yet if you look at it in a certain way, it could seem as if the middle/upper class is taking advantage of the poor again and that they're sinful for doing so and our evil system is encouraging this. Obviously this generalization is dumb. I say that stupidity contributes to the problem more than I'm sure you want to admit.

 

..............................................

 

Nope. They're based on freedom and personal responsibility.

The stock market is only one part of the economy. No one is compelled to be part of it. I do not "play the market."

This is an abuse of the system, and not the foundation of it.

Very, very few workers live anywhere near poverty. Regardless, a man has the inalienable right to do what he will with his own things.

That's one measure, but not the central one.

They're not based on "everyone for himself." They're based on liberty and responsibility.

 

To some dim-witted, short-sighted individuals perhaps. But more importantly it creates an environment where a man can enjoy the fruits of his labor.

 

I join those who think that the U.S. does not properly treat the poor...but I differ from many in terms of direction.

Here are some of the damaging things we do for/to the poor:

1. We establish a minimum wage for legal workers while not enforcing the immigration laws. This hits the poorest workers twice. First by artificially setting the value of low skilled work which raises labor costs and results in fewer entry level jobs for the lower skilled. Secondly by artificially lowering the wages for many entry level low skilled jobs by letting them go "off book" to illegals whose jobs won't be covered by any minimum wage law.

2. We withhold an amount equal to 12.4% of the paychecks of the poor and then simply transfer it mostly to folks who have earned much more in their lifetimes (social security). Since the poorest have, on average, the shortest lifespans, they benefit the least from these transfers. This transfer is especially devious when you consider what that 12.4% would do if placed in a simple market index mutual fund over 30-40 years (private account). Upon retirement, the private accounts would have a real value dramatically greater than anything that a poor worker would receive in social security checks. Plus, this account would be something that could be inherited upon the death of the worker as opposed to what happens now where there is nothing to hand down. Factor in the shorter lifespans and the families of the poorest continue to get the shaft even after the death of the worker.

3. Since school choice is not an option for 99.999%+ of US students, the poorest are often stuck in schools that are failing in both instruction and discipline. And since the poorest children are most likely to have parents uninvolved in their children's education, the poor tend to receive a far worse start than those of higher economic status.

4. Our "progressive" tax code is set up so that the bottom 50% of all workers (in terms of income) pay less than 4% of the total federal income tax burden. This creates a class of workers at the bottom who end up dependent upon politicians who promise to "give" these workers something for their vote. By not paying taxes, these workers develop a mindset of not having a stake in the economy or the government and, rather, develop a mindset of entitlement because of their economic status. The result is that the poor are conned by slick talking politicians who promise to stick it to the rich...and the result of this is that the rich limit investment which, in turn, results in fewer jobs being created and higher unemployment for the poorest workers.

5. We make it very easy for the richest and best educated citizens to "get out of" jury duty which means that juries are increasingly populated by the least educated, least successful citizens. So when the poor petition the courts in trials that require juries, justices is less likely.

In summary, the poorest in the US are treated like ignorant, untrainable, uneducatable children....and then we react with shock when many of the poor live up (or down) that expectation. To paraphrase an American statesman, all of this results in the "soft bigotry of low expectations".

 

I think we need to define "poor" It seems most people think anyone who makes a few dollars more than they do is rich, and anyone who doesn't have as much as "we" think they derserve is poor.

 

Doesn't this remind you of something? Let me help;

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

 

The critical difference in the Acts 4 example and Socialism is that the mode of participation. Acts 4 was the result of each individual's desire/need for Christian community and it was voluntary. Socialism uses the armed force of government to confiscate wealth.

The two are not even close.