1206
Post by: Easy E
This one is for Manchu....
You can read the actual exhortation(?) here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#SOME_CHALLENGES_OF_TODAY%E2%80%99S_WORLD
However, here is the cliff notes per John Dickerson:
Pope Francis' latest apostolic exhortation covers a number of topics, but really lights into libertarian economics. There's a lot of stuff about Jesus in his thinking that I can't really sign on to but here's a great point about media priorities and the declining marginal value of income:
"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape."
But importantly, he follows up with a specific invocation of the need for state action rather than simple trust in the beneficence of the powerful:
"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system."
And, again, not a call for charity or goodwill toward the poor but specifically for economic regulation and democratic supervision of the capitalist system:
"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."
And on externalities:
"In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule."
Again, a call for political change:
"A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor."
I've heard a number of conservative Catholic commentators remark numerous times that it's silly for left-wing people to be highlighting Pope Francis' thoughts on economic policy because all this stuff has been Catholic doctrine for a long time. I think this misses the point. Obviously a new pope isn't going to make up a new religious doctrine from scratch. But when you have a corpus of thinking and tradition that spans centuries, it makes a great deal of difference what you emphasize.
I remember very clearly having been an intern in Chuck Schumer's office and attending with the senator, some of his staff, and a wide swathe of New York City political elites an event at St Patrick's Cathedral to celebrate the posthumous award of the Congressional Gold Medal to Archbishop John O'Connor. His successor, Archbishop Egan, delivered an address that went on at length about O'Connor's charitable work, but on a public policy level addressed almost exclusively the Church's support for banning abortion, for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples, and for school vouchers. That was a choice he made about what he thought it was important for people to hear about. Pope Francis is making a different kind of choice.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/26/evangelii_gauddium_pope_francis_vs_libertarian_economics.html
21720
Post by: LordofHats
You know when this guy got picked as Pope, I said I liked him.
*reads article*
Yep. Still like him 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
[redneck]*spits* Whelp, I didn't vote for him to be my pope, who did, God?[/redneck]
All in all, still a pretty big fan of Pope Frankie
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Maybe the Pope will be good for something afterall.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
This pope is amazing.
He's not homophobic, he cares about the poor, and he is a generally nice person.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
And he has cajones the size of his pulpit. Benedict seemed at times to be almost too afraid to say much about anything. Francis comes off as really speaking his mind.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
This pope best pope
33125
Post by: Seaward
I personally would've titled it, "Pope Francis channels Marx!'" but either way, I suspect his views will continue to inform my personal and political philosophies exactly as much as they do now.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Seaward wrote:I personally would've titled it, "Pope Francis channels Marx!'" but either way, I suspect his views will continue to inform my personal and political philosophies exactly as much as they do now.
Um... completely and entirely?
Did I win a prize? 
1206
Post by: Easy E
I was thinking, "Pope Francis smells like a Socialist".
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Easy E wrote:I was thinking, "Pope Francis smells like a Socialist".
Well, he is from South America 
25703
Post by: juraigamer
 Co'tor Shas wrote:This pope is amazing.
He's not homophobic, he cares about the poor, and he is a generally nice person.
It's like he's a Christian. Not just in name.
*glares at most of the US*
58145
Post by: FirePainter
As a born and raised catholic. I must say this pope is amazing and needs to stay where he's at for a long time.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Easy E wrote:I was thinking, "Pope Francis smells like a Socialist".
Jesus also sounded like a socialist. 
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Dope pope.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Kudos to him for being an active force. Even if I disagree with some of his conclusions.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
So, is the Church going to give back the vast sums of money they took from most of the western world over the last couple of thousand years so they could wear silver and gold dresses and build vast stone churches while everyone else lived in hovels and worked as serfs?
33125
Post by: Seaward
 SilverMK2 wrote:So, is the Church going to give back the vast sums of money they took from most of the western world over the last couple of thousand years so they could wear silver and gold dresses and build vast stone churches while everyone else lived in hovels and worked as serfs?
No, I'd imagine that money's unfortunately already been spent "reassigning" priests who friended Pedobear on Facebook. It's not cheap to ferry a lot of guys all over the world every couple years.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Remember boys, Jesus saves, but Satan invests! Automatically Appended Next Post: SilverMK2 wrote:So, is the Church going to give back the vast sums of money they took from most of the western world over the last couple of thousand years so they could wear silver and gold dresses and build vast stone churches while everyone else lived in hovels and worked as serfs?
Wo wo wo, lets not get crazy now... 
181
Post by: gorgon
Seaward wrote:I personally would've titled it, "Pope Francis channels Marx!'" but either way, I suspect his views will continue to inform my personal and political philosophies exactly as much as they do now.
37231
Post by: d-usa
SilverMK2 wrote:So, is the Church going to give back the vast sums of money they took from most of the western world over the last couple of thousand years so they could wear silver and gold dresses and build vast stone churches while everyone else lived in hovels and worked as serfs?
Considering that this is the kind of crap that Popsie is tired off we can at least hope a tiny little bit.
German Bishop Tebartz-van Elst was building himself a nice little mansion when he had to go visit the pope, who made him wait a week before he would even see him and then cut off the visit after only 15 minutes before suspending him. I guess Tebartz-van Elst didnt get the hint of what the pope is like when new pope refused to move into his papal apartment and decided to stay in his guest-suite instead with minimal staff.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Although I am atheist, from what I can tell of the man by his words/actions, I like this Pope a great deal. The two specific news pieces that caught my eye since his coronation were;
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class. We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all. And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there." (Unfortunately redacted by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church but the Pope stood by his statement)
and
"We also sense our closeness to all those men and women who, although not identifying themselves as followers of any religious tradition, are nonetheless searching for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God. They are our valued allies in the commitment to defending human dignity, in building a peaceful coexistence between peoples and in safeguarding and caring for creation.”
When I read the above two quotes, I get a sense of a Pope that wants to use his influence to make the world a better place with believers and atheists alike...and I can get behind that. I still disagree with his views on homosexual marriage, abortion and the right of women within the Catholic Church--but he seems interested in intellectual engagement on those issues--which is all you can ask from someone that disagrees with you. I don't mind saying I really like the guy so far from what I've seen/read of him.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
"Catholic Pope speaks on Distributism, the economic doctrine advanced by the Church for over a century, and is seen as a revolutionnary by both those that support his claims and those that opposes them.'' That sounds about right. Seaward wrote:I personally would've titled it, "Pope Francis channels Marx!'"
The Catholic Church condemns both Capitalism and Socialism as immoral. But OH LORDYLORD, how can you handle something that doesn't conform itself to your 'false dilemma' vision of the world?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Kovnik Obama wrote:"Catholic Pope speaks on Distributism, the economic doctrine advanced by the Church for over a century, and is seen as a revolutionnary by both those that support his claims and those that opposes them.''
That sounds about right.
Right indeed.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Well apparently the 7% we tithe isn't good enough anymore. Guess I'll stop altogether.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
I'm watching the result of this piece hitting the Gawker sinkhole, and it is just painful. Although one thing funny came out of it :
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm watching the result of this piece hitting the Gawker sinkhole, and it is just painful. Although one thing funny came out of it :
Thank you. That's... That's so...  Beautiful.
50326
Post by: curran12
Francis continues to impress. I'm Catholic and I'm extremely happy with his current path. Go Frankie.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I would guess not since a tithe would be 10%.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
The extra three percent are just for the Trinity, not the Church. Gotta pay the boss its cut of the spoils 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
3% for 2000 years, assuming proper investment... God is one rich son of a...
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 LordofHats wrote:3% for 2000 years, assuming proper investment... God is one rich son of a...
He knew exactly what to do...
16387
Post by: Manchu
LordofHats wrote:Benedict seemed at times to be almost too afraid to say much about anything.
On the subject of economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caritas_in_Veritate
For example: Then, the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.
Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.
The exclusively binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up society.
etc etc etc
This encyclical was so disturbing to right-wing Catholics that at least one of them went so far as to deny the Pope even wrote the parts he objected to.
The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new nor broaching this topic for the first time in recent years. This is an authentic Catholic message that will be difficult for some Catholics to hear, especially considering that once again it comes from the bishop of Rome. With Francis, however, there is no denying it is he himself who thinks these things.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 juraigamer wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:This pope is amazing.
He's not homophobic, he cares about the poor, and he is a generally nice person.
It's like he's a Christian. Not just in name.
*glares at most of the US*
I'm a little late, but that is hilarious.
...as in I actually laughed not just said " LOL" but didn't actually laugh
...I hate it when people do that
241
Post by: Ahtman
Manchu wrote:The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Ahtman wrote:Manchu wrote:The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?
i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion. ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine. iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kovnik Obama wrote: Ahtman wrote:Manchu wrote:The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?
i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion.
ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine.
iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.
While some of that is certainly true, it seems a bit of a No True Scotsman as well as ignoring any other possibilities, such as the Church being fairly awful at getting the message out in a meaningful way.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Ahtman wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote: Ahtman wrote:Manchu wrote:The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?
i) Because to many Catholics, being a Catholic stops at going through with all the Sacraments and, sometimes, with attending church on Sunday. Just like every other religion. ii) Because most of the outcry comes from people who are neither Catholics, nor informed on Catholic doctrine. iii) Because people have the attention span of lobotomized monkeys.
While some of that is certainly true, it seems a bit of a No True Scotsman as well as ignoring any other possibilities, such as the Church being fairly awful at getting the message out in a meaningful way.
Well, the encyclicals aren't required readings. And while they aren't ''Harry Potter''-style litterature lite, the message and the language is incredibly clear, coherent and accessible. And it's really engaging, if you compare to other social studies works Holy Father Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891 wrote:45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.
46. If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.
47. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.
5470
Post by: sebster
It's interesting to see the argument that Francis isn't saying anything new, but somehow when he says it the stuff is put first and foremost. I wonder if its a bit like the Dalai Lama, who has some views on social issues that are downright authoritarian, and yet he's the darling of social progressives over the planet.
Anyhow, however this is happening, it's still great to see the church be publically seen to shift towards concern for economic equality.
Hang on, wasn't that a criticism of a christian group? Aren't you supposed to be freaking out and moaning that people are just bashing christians again when someone says something like the above?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 sebster wrote:...I wonder if its a bit like the Dalai Lama, who has some views on social issues that are downright authoritarian, and yet he's the darling of social progressives over the planet...
I would love to hear about that. He didn't seem to be like that at all.
p.s. I'm not trying to catch you or something, I'm legitimately interested.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:Manchu wrote:The truth is, Pope Francis is neither saying something new
So then I suppose the question is why does it seem that way to large swathes of people, including other Catholics?
The simple answer, as Kovnik O has already more or less laid out, is that most people know far more about what they think about the Church than about the Church itself. The more complex answer, which takes into account your retort, is that the Church is not like a corporation or a political campaign in the sense of generating a monolithic marketing campaign. Why? Because the Church isn't like those other institutions -- specifically, it is not external to the experience of the Faithful. What I mean is, Christianity is in the first place a personal experience rather than set of information beamed at persons like government regulation or advertisements.
Perhaps what is most surprising to many people about Pope Francis is that he seems to be saying things that they already agree with. This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated. The element of surprise, I think, comes from a forgetfulness about the sources of Western morality -- which are and remain overwhelmingly Christian. That forgetfulness is the result of some pretty complex historical developments that can be summed up under the heading of secularisation. To just touch on one very recent aspect of this phenomenon, there has developed since the 1950s a very striking consensus that figures of religious authority bear little relevance in society.
Another issue of forgetfulness is a factor of how contemporary popular media shapes our understanding of the world. We have a tendancy to project the present onto both the past and the future. Criticisms of the popes being out of touch would have seemed quite out of place during most of John Paul II's reign. But towards the end of his reign, he was unable to speak or really even move too well. In Ratzinger, the cardinals elected a man who was relatively hostile to personally leveraging the capacities of mass media. Unlike his predecessor, Benedict XVI preferred formal, sustained dialog over sound bytes and photo ops. This personal idiom, while indicative of a sincere intellect, did not prove suitable to deal with the sexual abuse scandals. Indeed, those scandals only further deafened most ears.
In this context, it became easy to believe that popes were outmoded, irrelevant if not totally sinister. It became easy to believe that the Church itself shared the qualities. It became easy to believe that whatever one considers offensively archaic is probably held and taught by such men. Then Francis began to speak.
241
Post by: Ahtman
There are certainly some interesting things to mull over there, but I do want to respond to this:
Manchu wrote:What I mean is, Christianity is in the first place a personal experience rather than set of information beamed at persons like government regulation or advertisements.
It also isn't an entirely insular, or solipsistic, experience either. Last I heard spreading the Gospel of Jesus was a fairly important thing, and one does not have to be selling ads on TV to share ideas with others. Just because it doesn't disseminate ideas in the same way as government or business doesn't mean that those ideas aren't being passed on.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well, that's exactly my point.
5470
Post by: sebster
Co'tor Shas wrote:I would love to hear about that. He didn't seem to be like that at all. p.s. I'm not trying to catch you or something, I'm legitimately interested.
He's stated homosexuality is wrong, because it involves other holes than the ones used to make babies. Expanding on this, he clarified that the use of those other holes, even by straight married couples, is wrong. So no more Steak and Blowjob day. He's stated that sex during the day is wrong. So no more sky rockets in flight. He's stated that masturbation is wrong. And that means no-one gets to post on dakka anymore. Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Dalai Lama is a bad guy, because I don't believe that at all. It's more to point out the tendency we have of simplifying certain public figures in to being abstract notions of good or bad, instead of being the complex human beings that they really are. Ultimately the Dalai Lama has sexual beliefs that you'd expect of a virgin who was thrust in to a position of moral and religious leadership from a very early age.... but those views are ignored by much Western media and most of the population, because we want a nice simple story about a guy who's pure good. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Perhaps what is most surprising to many people about Pope Francis is that he seems to be saying things that they already agree with. This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated. The element of surprise, I think, comes from a forgetfulness about the sources of Western morality -- which are and remain overwhelmingly Christian.
You don't get to claim charity and empathy as purely Christian in origin. When the early Christians went out spreading the word people didn't hear it and think 'Holy gak, charity? Why didn't anyone think of that before?'
21720
Post by: LordofHats
And that means no-one gets to post on dakka anymore.
Did not know that stuff about the Dalai Lama. Probably helps his image that he's a leader fighting those mean Chinese folk over the mountains.
16387
Post by: Manchu
sebster wrote:You don't get to claim charity and empathy as purely Christian in origin. When the early Christians went out spreading the word people didn't hear it and think 'Holy gak, charity? Why didn't anyone think of that before?'
Actually, I do rather think that was the Roman reaction.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:Actually, I do rather think that was the Roman reaction.
The history of philanthropy says you're wrong. Any how, more importantly, are you actually saying that christianity is the only reason we value charity? Because that's what your statement seems to boil down to, and that can't possibly be right. Oh, and just on protocol, I noticed you referred to Ratzinger as, well, Ratzinger. Is that what's been agreed to as a term for him now he's no longer pope? He reverts to his old name? Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Did not know that stuff about the Dalai Lama. Probably helps his image that he's a leader fighting those mean Chinese folk over the mountains.
I think it helps that appears to be a genuinely nice guy with all sorts of wise and kind things to say aboutl lots of stuff. But he's also got some downright whacky views that people try hard to ignore, because complexity is not something we handle well in our major figures.
16387
Post by: Manchu
As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters.
As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian.
I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Manchu wrote:As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters. As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian. I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.
Amen to that brother,  even today a lot of Christian moral ethics is considered shocking or unbelievable by today's "civilized" standards. Sincerely forgiving and loving one's enemies is something that I find is one Christian maxim that gets people, especially in the context of every day life. Back in high school my best friend and I had to deal with an incredibly annoying and dickish classmate in gym who always seemed to manage to rub us the wrong way (not literally mind you ) and during one time after another annoying moment with him in a moment of clarity I said "I'll pray for him." which my buddy overheard and gave me a shocked face and genuinely asked as to why I would ever do that. He later understood by what I meant and why but the fact that he was agnostic and reacted so adversely to my comment makes me feel like this is something that is radically against human nature and most of our culture. If we managed to do this on a heartfelt, consistent individual basis the world would be a much different place.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:As to protocol, the popes take regnal names and I don't mean to suggest any "reversion" so much as to remind everyone that they are people with pasts and personalities rather than television presenters.
Oh, okay. Thanks. As to your "history of philanthropy," I think you are underestimating the radicalism of Christian morality -- as is your privilege as a Westerner. And in any case, the West today is not the moral or ethical heir of any tradition aside from the West's own, which is Christian.
But that Christian tradition is itself heir to the beliefs that existed before it. Christian charity didn't just spring up out of nowhere. I don't say that no man ever did another a kindness before Jesus spoke; just that the Gospel reframes the whole idea of it. When the Almighty Himself is a person, one has quite another level of obligation to persons generally.
Sure, but if it's just about reframing the idea, and thereby granting it greater importance, that's a reasonable claim and one I agree with. But once we recognise charity existed before christianity, then your statement "This is evidence that the message of Christianity has been effectively communicated even unbeknownst to those to whom it has been communicated", which is basically presuming that any charity witnessed in the Christian world must have been influenced by christian teaching, starts looking like a really long bow to draw.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Indeed it didn't and charity is a significant part of other religions as well, it is one of the 5 pillars of Islam for instance.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Well, he sure talks a good talk.
Positive declarations from his office regarding condom use as an aid to stop the spread of HIV/Aids, the re-education of his church on abortion and homosexuality might be a better step to take.
An open discussion about the truly abominable and unnatural celibacy its priests have to face would be welcome too.
The church revels in the fact that many of its worshippers are poor and illiterate and yet does hardly a thing Vs the massive power it holds to make any change in its own status quo.
Maybe this pope is making the first steps towards more frank and open dialogue but deeds not words as they say.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Now you're just chasing nonsense. sebster wrote:presuming that any charity witnessed in the Christian world must have been influenced by christian teaching, starts looking like a really long bow to draw
Not at all. For better or worse, Christianity is a basic and pervasive component of the inescapable lens that is worldview, at least for Westerners.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Hmmm sounds like we have a no gak liberation theologist in the big chair folks.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I will take Liberation Theology over Prosperity Doctrine any day fo the week.
Also, Supply Side Jesus was priceless. Perhaps my new favorite version, just ahead of Buddy Jesus.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
It makes sense to me human ideas are always inspired by the world around them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, what I meant was that seb is trying to frame the issue in an absurd way despite my earlier clarification.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Manchu wrote:No, what I meant was that seb is trying to frame the issue in an absurd way despite my earlier clarification.
Oh, OK sorry for the misinterpretation.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No prob, some times I play the ambiguity a little too close, just in the spirit of merry discussion.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
They claim that the Pope is unscientific and yet, in typical liberal fashion, ignore the fact that there's more undernourished people now than in 1990.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Don't you understand? More people have moved up the social ladder in the last 20 years than ever before! That means capitalism works and the answer to all humanities ills.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Truly, it is the end of history!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, Cheesecat.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Cheesecat wrote:I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Oh Gawd. That piece made me want to pour battery acid in my eyes. My cat's bowel mouvements contains more informative content on the current state of the world's economy that this waste of screen space.
And "Reason"??? Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kovnik Obama wrote:Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?
I'm sure it can be done: for example, here and here. Bit of a fashion among a certain crowd.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.
I was commenting more on KM's article I need to spend some time and read your link too.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Manchu wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:Could you please advertise more evidently that your principal argumentative techniques is going to be sophistry?
I'm sure it can be done: for example, here and here. Bit of a fashion among a certain crowd.
AH! See, on the Francophonie side of things, we have http://www.amazon.fr/Trait%C3%A9-dAth%C3%A9ologie-Michel-Onfray-ebook/dp/B005OWJ5QE. It doesn't have the same tacky title, but I'm sure it's the same crap inside. Although it's not fair for me to say that, I still just haven't been able to force myself to read anything by either Dawkins or Hitchens that was longer than 5 paragraphs. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Cheesecat wrote: I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.
Well, perhaps neoliberal. But this is a communication problem too, here, this article piece is seen as conservative, and generally, a north american will oppose conservatism and liberalism. [Edit] The author is a self-proclaimed libertarian, which is kind of a weird beast in the States. Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions. A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kovnik Obama wrote:Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.
A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.
Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.
You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see what that has to do with liberalism as I don't know any liberal who hates capitalism (but I know many that hate badly managed capitalism) and second of all the pope says "unfettered" capitalism not capitalism in general. What a gakky article.
The article is coming from a classbook liberal point of view, not the Pope.
Well, perhaps neoliberal. But this is a communication problem too, here, this article piece is seen as conservative, and generally, a north american will oppose conservatism and liberalism. [Edit] The author is a self-proclaimed libertarian, which is kind of a weird beast in the States. Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.
A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.
Liberal as the IR point of view called liberalism.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Seaward wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.
A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.
Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.
You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.
Case.
In.
Point.
73999
Post by: Haight
LordofHats wrote:You know when this guy got picked as Pope, I said I liked him.
*reads article*
Yep. Still like him
I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
... I have to admit, I like Pope Francis. He's kinda awesome. Doesn't change my views, but he's at least worthy of the moniker "spiritual leader".
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 Haight wrote: LordofHats wrote:You know when this guy got picked as Pope, I said I liked him.
*reads article*
Yep. Still like him
I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
... I have to admit, I like Pope Francis. He's kinda awesome. Doesn't change my views, but he's at least worthy of the moniker "spiritual leader".
My dads catholic and liberal so this the the first pope he has liked
5470
Post by: sebster
Unless you can pick some thing that developed outside of history, then everything came from something else and the excercise is silly.
Not at all. For better or worse, Christianity is a basic and pervasive component of the inescapable lens that is worldview, at least for Westerners.
Recognising that christianity is important is a mile away from what you appear to be doing here.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I have never read Hitchens but Dawkins popular science books are good and informative, he is a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford after all.
24779
Post by: Eilif
As usual I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I like this Pope. I'm not a Catholic, and disagree with various Catholic teachings (spiritual and social) but this guy just impresses the heck out of me, and not just for the intense concern he seems to have for the poor and oppressed.
Part of what I find most fascinating is that his core teachings and even many of his stances on some of the more hot button social issues don't seem to actually differ from what seems to be basic church doctrine. However, the things he emphasizes as important and de-emphasizes as not central show a set of priorities are so radically different from what we've come to expect from the Catholic Church.
I also am blown away by his lifestyle of driving a crappy car, living in an apartment, wearing not-flashy clothes (Ratzinger and your red prada shoes!) taking time to get out of the Popemobile touch poor people. All of this echoed in public statements that decry the social injustices of our age. It's all very inspiring and seems pretty Jesus-like.
Time will tell whether the Pope's spoken opinions become church policy, but it's certainly shaping up to be a not-boring papacy.
As a side note, my brother converted to Catholicism a few years back and is entering the Jesuits, the order that Francis comes from. We've always supported his decisions, even when we didn't totally understand them, but for me, seeing this Pope in action puts a different and even more positive light on little bro's chosen vocation. He could do alot worse than having Francis as his boss.
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...
Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.
24779
Post by: Eilif
sebster wrote: Seaward wrote:Who's he railing against, then? No country on earth runs an unfettered capitalist market, so unless he's warning us of some version of the future he's glimpsed through a palantir...
Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.
That would be my assumption as well. In the "battle" (for lack of a better word) between those who wish to move toward more unfettered capitalism with an decreased safety net, and those who wish to have capitalism more restrained with an eye toward protecting those at the bottom, the Pope seems to have made it very clear which side he is on.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Kovnik Obama wrote:Although it's not fair for me to say that, I still just haven't been able to force myself to read anything by either Dawkins or Hitchens that was longer than 5 paragraphs.
Really? I consider The Selfish Gene one of the best science books I've ever read. Likewise, I thought Why Orwell Matters (along with Hitchen's book on Jefferson) were great reads. Their books on religion are socratic dialogue pieces written to inflame debate (and of course, make money doing so)--so it's natural that they are so divisive.
That said, they are (or sadly were in HItchen's case) terrific authors.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Haight wrote:
I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
".
Why? What purpose does that serve? I never understand this attitude. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Eilif wrote:As usual I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I like this Pope. I'm not a Catholic, and disagree with various Catholic teachings (spiritual and social) but this guy just impresses the heck out of me, and not just for the intense concern he seems to have for the poor and oppressed.
I really think a lot of that has to due with the fact that he's from South America and has been part of a religious constituency that has some truly impoverished people. That's not to say previous Popes haven't at all, but Francis' background as a man of the common person is by all accounts I've seen, genuine.
5470
Post by: sebster
 AgeOfEgos wrote:Their books on religion are socratic dialogue pieces written to inflame debate (and of course, make money doing so)--so it's natural that they are so divisive.
That said, they are (or sadly were in HItchen's case) terrific authors.
Yeah, both authors are really good examples of why people should stick to writing on what they know. In their fields of expertise both write great stuff (actually I'm still not a huge fan of Hitchens, but I wouldn't write him off as a lightweight), but on the subject of other people's faith, they both write total nonsense.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Seaward wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:Libertarianism has been adopted by people that were previously conservatives, so they resent the political proximity libertarianism has had in the past with anarchism and other more leftist positions.
A north american liberal is generally located center-right, so I doubt most would attack what the Pope said in the fashion exhibited in this article.
Koalas are responsible for 86% of all deaths in Australia.
You're on to something with this "making gak up" thing. It's pretty fun.
They do kill that many people Seaward, mostly with Chlamydia. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~koalas/factsprobs.html
33125
Post by: Seaward
sebster wrote:Lots of people argue for a move to unfettered capitalism and a winding back of the social safety net. And these people have had considerable success in the last couple of decades. I presume the Pope is talking about those people.
"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape."
"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."
Sounds to me like he's talking about what is, not what might be. I don't know of any state that exercises no form of control over the economy.
Speaking of people sticking to their field...does that apply to the Pope?
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Sounds to me like he's talking about what is, not what might be. I don't know of any state that exercises no form of control over the economy.
If you want to get that literal, then sure. Or if you want to consider government involvement in the economy as a sliding scale, and consider 'unfettered' not just the absolute extreme of zero government involvement, but states along that are far enough along that end of the scale, then it should be pretty clear what he's talking about.
Speaking of people sticking to their field...does that apply to the Pope?
Social commentary is his field. Now, that doesn't mean this pope or any other, or any religious figure for that matter, is automatically going to make good commentary, but claiming that they should keep quiet on matters of equality is missing the point of religion somewhat.
16387
Post by: Manchu
sebster wrote:Recognising that christianity is important is a mile away from what you appear to be doing here.
I can see you'd like to force the issue but I'd rather chose my own position, you see?
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:I can see you'd like to force the issue but I'd rather chose my own position, you see?
I'm honestly not trying to do that. I think maybe this just isn't working, and we can just call it off, yeah?
73999
Post by: Haight
 cincydooley wrote: Haight wrote:
I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
".
Why? What purpose does that serve? I never understand this attitude.
Critical of the Catholic Church ? How much time ya got ? No seriously, the history of the Catholic Church has been highly questionable for centuries. The church does some good works. It has also done some incredibly heinous things, or stood by and watched as other incredibly heinous things were done.
Torturing my bible thumping relatives ?
I won't get into a lengthy treatise about it as if i described what i've seen perpetrated in the name of catholicism, most people would figure i was lying (and given the Church's track record, i think that's saying something). Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word -- it's their choice, and though I think it's both foolish and a form of brainwashing, hey, to each their own. If the only way you can sleep at night is to believe in some invisible, unprovable anthropomorphic grand being that chose to reveal himself to his creations only during the time of illiterate bronze age technology and never once again, since. Hey... sure.
The remaining members of my family that i still have contact with deserve every ounce of Theological torture i send their way. And i delight in giving it to them. It's a testament to the nature of organized religion that most debates i have with my relatives on the topic end with "Well, i can't prove that you're wrong, but i don't have to. I have Faith.".
So given all that, I still have to say, i like the cut of Francis' jib. I like his laid back style, and i'm starting to love his politics.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Haight wrote:
I won't get into a lengthy treatise about it as if i described what i've seen perpetrated in the name of catholicism, most people would figure i was lying (and given the Church's track record, i think that's saying something). Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word -- it's their choice, and though I think it's both foolish and a form of brainwashing, hey, to each their own. If the only way you can sleep at night is to believe in some invisible, unprovable anthropomorphic grand being that chose to reveal himself to his creations only during the time of illiterate bronze age technology and never once again, since. Hey... sure.
.
Just wanted to be clear that you understand how condescending and douchy you sound with this viewpoint, yeah?
It's attitudes like yours that make atheists look like donkey-caves. But it must feel oh so good from your high horse.
73999
Post by: Haight
cincydooley wrote: Haight wrote:
I won't get into a lengthy treatise about it as if i described what i've seen perpetrated in the name of catholicism, most people would figure i was lying (and given the Church's track record, i think that's saying something). Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word -- it's their choice, and though I think it's both foolish and a form of brainwashing, hey, to each their own. If the only way you can sleep at night is to believe in some invisible, unprovable anthropomorphic grand being that chose to reveal himself to his creations only during the time of illiterate bronze age technology and never once again, since. Hey... sure.
.
Just wanted to be clear that you understand how condescending and douchy you sound with this viewpoint, yeah?
It's attitudes like yours that make atheists look like donkey-caves. But it must feel oh so good from your high horse.
You realize how little i care ? You realize how stupid it is to believe in something and sing songs about it for thousands of years that you can't see or prove the existence of, to wage wars in it's name, to burn women and children at the stake upon it ? To pardon men for committing pedophilia for decades - centuries even - by playing a shell came with their assignments because, hey, they are men of the cloth.
I'll take douche over fanatic any day.
You asked. I answered. If i said anything that you can prove is incorrect, by all means - show me.
241
Post by: Ahtman
You care at least enough to keep posting.
Haight wrote:You realize how stupid it is to believe in something and sing songs about it for thousands of years that you can't see or prove the existence of, to wage wars in it's name, to burn women and children at the stake upon it ? To pardon men for committing pedophilia for decades - centuries even - by playing a shell came with their assignments because, hey, they are men of the cloth.
You also realize that is a pretty self serving way of looking at it?
And yet you come across as an angry, mean-spirited fanatic. Congratulations, you have become what you despise.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
There is a crapton of science which we can't prove yet but we believe in because we see patterns and other effects which showed it exists.
And man doesn't need religion to be evil and cause horribleness, to have outrage at religion as a cause of war and evil is a shallow view because the truth is evil is done in the name of non-religious ways all the time. Ghengis khan had no religion and was super tolerant of religious diversity, and he murdered and raped millions simply because he could.
If you have to be super mad face at religion and not at the people who commit acts, you are no better than they are and are a fanatic with a "belief system" which is just as prone to causing harm to the world in the name of "forcing your beliefs" or " your beliefs being harmful" as any religion. You are the very thing you disagree with.
73999
Post by: Haight
I find the topic interesting. Thus why i keep posting (even after being insulted now several times... s'all good though, i'm used to it on this topic. Sling your worst, not going to bother me.)
Haight wrote:You realize how stupid it is to believe in something and sing songs about it for thousands of years that you can't see or prove the existence of, to wage wars in it's name, to burn women and children at the stake upon it ? To pardon men for committing pedophilia for decades - centuries even - by playing a shell came with their assignments because, hey, they are men of the cloth.
You also realize that is a pretty self serving way of looking at it?
How so ? Which of the above serves me to look at it in such a way ? Which, moreover, is incorrect ?
Note i admitted the Church does good works. I also note it's done some pretty heinous things. You, on the other hand, discount what i say anecdotally without acknowledging point and counter-point. This is counter productive to a debate that achieves anything (then again it's the internet, and unlike my relatives who have diametric opposite opinions of me, meaningful debate is really difficult.)
I'm all ears to hear arguments and opinions from people that differ from me - my beliefs are held with every bit of conviction as the faithfuls, yet i'm objective enough to hear differing points of view (again, ironically, without getting angry about it). Had a great time at Thanksgiving with my spiritually minded relatives (I also mentioned this discussion, because one of my Aunt's brought Pope Francis up, and we had a great discussion regarding him).
And yet you come across as an angry, mean-spirited fanatic. Congratulations, you have become what you despise.
I find it ironic that you call me angry, mean spirited, and fanatic, but yet i haven't insulted anyone.
I can't wait to hear the rationale behind that !
Again, not angry. Every bit as full of conviction as the faithful, not angry. Don't insert disagreement or strong opinion for INTERNET RAGE where there is none. At the end of the day past a bit of disdain, and a love of verbal sparring with people i know (on both sides), others beliefs really don't matter to me as long as they don't affect me personally or do harm to others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote:There is a crapton of science which we can't prove yet but we believe in because we see patterns and other effects which showed it exists.
Fair point. Though i'd argue it's not really true Science (vis-a-vis, accepted as fact) until the hypothesis is proven, right ?
And man doesn't need religion to be evil and cause horribleness, to have outrage at religion as a cause of war and evil is a shallow view because the truth is evil is done in the name of non-religious ways all the time. Ghengis khan had no religion and was super tolerant of religious diversity, and he murdered and raped millions simply because he could.
Fair point too. Then again i never said otherwise. I'd venture though, removing economy of scale due to technological advances, more wars have been caused by Religious reasons than not so, or had religion as a major tenet playing a part either directly or indirectly.
Gheghis Khan's an interesting example, probably not the best one though. Khan was tolerant of religion to the point where his pragmatism as a mercenary was paid off to be tolerant. Pay the horde off, it goes away and leaves the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, - whoever, really - alone. Don't pay, be exterminated. So while it's a point, i don't think it's the strongest point in favor of your argument. World War 1 would be a better example, personally, for horrid conflict that was largely secular (or at least with religion playing ultimately very minor roles).
If you have to be super mad face at religion...
We've been through this. Not super mad. Just find the whole notion... foreign ? Yeah, that's the word i'll go with in a small concession to try to stop the pejorative turn this thread is taking. Foreign.
...and not at the people who commit acts, you are no better than they are and are a fanatic with a "belief system"...
Wait wait wait.
So... because i find fault with cardinals and bishops in Boston the knowingly and willfully reassigned priests they knew were pedophiles to other districts with kids, and i find fault with the church on this front...
... by your logic i'm just as bad as the pedophile in question, because i find blame not only with the individual, but also the organization. That i flat out don't understand, it's ... hell it's not even circular logic, it's plain not logic at all.
I don't get it. Your reasoning is a bit baffling on this point.
Also, excellent attempt at a strawman, but no dice. Quote exactly where i absolve the person of wrongdoing, and only blame the organization, expressly or implied.
...which is just as prone to causing harm to the world in the name of "forcing your beliefs" or " your beliefs being harmful" as any religion. You are the very thing you disagree with.
Incorrect. Patently. Blatant hyperbole, at that.
I cannot force my beliefs on anyone. I have very little power. I do not have literally, trillions of dollars of resources to use to perpetrate my beliefs. I do not have a small army of missionaries in underdeveloped countries proselytizing .
I cannot start a war. I cannot start heretical witch hunts. I cannot, by my merits, allow decades of child abuse.
I do not have a captive audience in groups of several hundred in several thousand places each weekend to repetitively deliver my ideas to, and accept money from.
You started off strong, i thought we might get somewhere towards a good discussion, but you sorta went off course at the end there. The further we went, the less the arguments made sense or held water. I did like the first couple points though.
73999
Post by: Haight
accidental double post while trying to fix some formatting.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Haight wrote:I find the topic interesting.
You either are apathetic (as you claim you) or you interested, the two don't mix; if you are interested, you aren't apathetic, if you are apathetic, you won't be interested; you seem confused as to why you are here.
Haight wrote:How so ?
You have created an overly broad, insulting, generic definition that fits into your idea of what it is.
Haight wrote:I find it ironic
You are not using that word right.
that you call me angry, mean spirited, and fanatic, but yet i haven't insulted anyone.
If you don't think you have been insulting, it would seem you have a disconnect between what you think you are saying and what you are actually saying. Either way, noting someone comes across as mean spirited and angry is not an insult, it is an observation. Calling someone stupid, or an idiot are examples of insults.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Interesting... People who believe in religion are intrinsically linked into a giant monolithic system where everyone is equally wrong for the actions of individuals, but you and your personal belief system of atheism is immune from being linked to others who share your beliefs and cause harm in the name of those beliefs.
A majority of Catholics can't start wars, have no ability to cause or stop child abuse or force their own personal beliefs on someone else any more than you do. By the same link, if there were powerful and unethical atheists who were causing harm to others in theme of his belief system, we could equally condemn you for promoting that belief system.
Double standard, and atheism is an organized belief system exploitable and just as capable of harming others as any religion. You may not be affiliated directly with a particular aspect of organized atheism, but you are then the equivalent of a Christian who doesn't attend church and is no more "good" or "evil" than the sum of their personal actions.
To claim all members of religions are guilty of all the actions of members of their church while atheists are immune because somehow their "belief system" is different is intellectually dishonest. A common flaw when one belief system tries to set itself apart or superior to others...
And FYI, the millions of Jews and Chinese murdered in WWII had nothing to do with religion and had everything to do with secular politician power and race issues. I have no idea where you get your statistic blaming religion for all the worlds wars as that is not supported by history at all. A majority of the top death tolls were not religious in the slightest. Except for the crusades and a few kings making up churches in Europe, religion had nothing to do with almost every other war in history.
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
nkelsch wrote:There is a crapton of science which we can't prove yet but we believe in because we see patterns and other effects which showed it exists.
Science doesn't ask you to "believe in" anything. Scientific theories attempt to find ways to explain observed phenomena.
You don't ever "prove" a theory conclusively. It's always possible for new theories to be made that explain the phenomena better, or new information to come to light that the theory can't fit.
And if a better theory is found you get rid of the old one.
nkelsch wrote:...and atheism is an organized belief system exploitable and just as capable of harming others as any religion.
Atheism is a lack of belief, and it would be pretty odd to call it organised!
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:nkelsch wrote:There is a crapton of science which we can't prove yet but we believe in because we see patterns and other effects which showed it exists.
Science doesn't ask you to "believe in" anything. Scientific theories attempt to find ways to explain observed phenomena.
You don't ever "prove" a theory conclusively. It's always possible for new theories to be made that explain the phenomena better, or new information to come to light that the theory can't fit.
And if a better theory is found you get rid of the old one.
nkelsch wrote:...and atheism is an organized belief system exploitable and just as capable of harming others as any religion.
Atheism is a lack of belief, and it would be pretty odd to call it organised!
Millions of dead in WW2 may disagree with you as secular beliefs and organized secularism was responsible for murdering millions. It is a belief system and can be taken and organized. There are plenty of secular belief systems which fall under atheism, many of which are harmful to people, like social Darwinism and others which are organize like secular humanism. Google international humanist and ethical union and tell me there is no organized atheism.
http://iheu.org
IHEU is the world union of more than 100 Humanist, rationalist, laïque, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organisations in over 40 countries. Our mission is to represent and support the worldwide Humanist movement. Our aim is a Humanist world in which human rights are respected and everyone can live a life of dignity.
Belief system, secular, atheist, organized.
And organizations can do good, or bad in the name of their belief systems. We have seen both good and bad form atheist and secular organized groups. They are equal to religion in every way and are just as at risk to corruption and hurting others as well as doing good for others.
33125
Post by: Seaward
nkelsch wrote:Millions of dead in WW2 may disagree with you as secular beliefs and organized secularism was responsible for murdering millions.
Oh, Jesus. Not this third grade attempt at blaming World War II on atheism again. Automatically Appended Next Post: nkelsch wrote:And organizations can do good, or bad in the name of their belief systems.
If you think Germany or Japan - or anyone involved, for that matter - fought World War II in the name of atheism, you need to return to whoever was responsible for educating you and punch them in the dong or equivalent, rapidly and repeatedly, for at least five minutes.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 Seaward wrote:nkelsch wrote:Millions of dead in WW2 may disagree with you as secular beliefs and organized secularism was responsible for murdering millions.
Oh, Jesus. Not this third grade attempt at blaming World War II on atheism again.
Hitler was a known atheist who hated and distrusted organized religion, and used his power to use religion as a scapegoat to gain power and murder people... If left to his own devices he would have exterminated all religion.
If you think WW2 was about anything but secular political power and that hitler was not an atheist, you are wrong. Blaming the worlds problems on religion is a common excuse made my atheists when history has shown humans kill for political power and race way more than religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:nkelsch wrote:Millions of dead in WW2 may disagree with you as secular beliefs and organized secularism was responsible for murdering millions.
Oh, Jesus. Not this third grade attempt at blaming World War II on atheism again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote:And organizations can do good, or bad in the name of their belief systems.
If you think Germany or Japan - or anyone involved, for that matter - fought World War II in the name of atheism, you need to return to whoever was responsible for educating you and punch them in the dong or equivalent, rapidly and repeatedly, for at least five minutes.
The nazi party was based on social Darwinism. Hitler was involved in WW2 and his actions were very much a direct result of his atheist beliefs. He wrote a helluva lot of stuff about it and believed in social Darwinism which is a secular design.
I don't know how you can say hitlers views on religion and his atheism was not a major component of his political policies and the execution of his actions?
Japan murdering the Chinese was good old fashion racism.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Seriously. Punch them as hard as possible, right in the jimmy. Often. You've been poorly served.
5470
Post by: sebster
Haight wrote:Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word...
Why aren't you doing that here?
37231
Post by: d-usa
sebster wrote: Haight wrote:Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word...
Why aren't you doing that here?
He's just too busy trying to explain to us why he cares so little about this topic.
5470
Post by: sebster
nkelsch wrote:Hitler was a known atheist who hated and distrusted organized religion, and used his power to use religion as a scapegoat to gain power and murder people... If left to his own devices he would have exterminated all religion. If you think WW2 was about anything but secular political power and that hitler was not an atheist, you are wrong. Blaming the worlds problems on religion is a common excuse made my atheists when history has shown humans kill for political power and race way more than religion.
While I agree with you that the base motivation for Hitler's war was power, you are entirely in wrong in claiming Hitler was an atheist. There's been plenty of efforts after the war to make that claim, and despite all their imagination every single one of those claims has been completely lacking in evidence. While Hitler was contemptuous of of the charitable elements of christianity, he still included many religious allusions in his writings. And just as banned religious groups that would not support him, he also banned every freethinking group that opposed him. The only consistency is that he allowed groups as long as they supported him, and banned them whenever they challenged him. Basically, any attempt to draw any conclusion about atheism and religion from Hitler is silly. The guy acted at all times to increase his own power, and used whatever rationalisation he could think of to justify it. Trying to conclude anything about Hitler's internal beliefs is nonsense - his complete lack of internal beliefs is what made him Hitler. Also, the term "Hitler was involved in WWII" is my new favourite line for things that are technically true but also completely bonkers. It's like that line Red Dwarf, when Rimmer said "Germany came second in WWII". Automatically Appended Next Post:  d-usa wrote:He's just too busy trying to explain to us why he cares so little about this topic.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Haight wrote:You realize how little i care ? You realize how stupid it is to believe in something and sing songs about it for thousands of years that you can't see or prove the existence of, to wage wars in it's name, to burn women and children at the stake upon it ? To pardon men for committing pedophilia for decades - centuries even - by playing a shell came with their assignments because, hey, they are men of the cloth.
I'll take douche over fanatic any day.
You asked. I answered. If i said anything that you can prove is incorrect, by all means - show me.
The problem here lies with the childish delight you seem to get from "showing those stupid religious people" what for by lambasting their beliefs with the same worn out attacks. The religious people of the world are not any more "stupid" than the atheists of the world and to think otherwise is just flat out wrong. It is entirely possible to be an atheist fanatic (see Richard Dawkins) and you are doing a pretty good job of it yourself. By doling out your "scathing" diatribes against religion you have become just as dogmatic as what you think you are fighting.
181
Post by: gorgon
It often seems to me that atheists tend to proselytize more than most "religious" people.
68355
Post by: easysauce
I think the pope needs to fix his own organization's problems before he starts judging others and casting stones.
34390
Post by: whembly
I like this pope... but, the direction of this conversation I think is being misunderstood.
If anything...his stances seems more about consumerism as opposed to the classical capitalism arguments.
The key thing here is that he’s from the crony-capitalism capital of Argentina... anyone who has paid attention to this country would tell you that... also, I think he has mistaken that what went on in Argentina... is SOP for the operation of free markets elsewhere.
However, throughout history, free-market principles has been a great driver of economic growth and can be argued that its also been a great driver of a more moral society. (I know I'm opening a can-o-worms here... but I challenge you to defy it!  )
Additionally, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a pejorative used by many to describe a viewpoint they oppose. How is it any different than those on the right referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories as well. Call it for what this is....
Finally, as far as I know, the pope did not address the tax-exempt status of the church. I would be very curious what he has to say about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  easysauce wrote:I think the pope needs to fix his own organization's problems before he starts judging others and casting stones.
Well... I think he is....
Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
I want to like Franis. He seems like a great guy who really wants to make the Catholic Church a respectable group.
The problem is, he's a fething hypocrite just like the rest. Considering the Catholic Church backed and largely influenced Croatia's ban on same sex marriage recently, his previous speech about not judging gays rings hollow.
I want to like Francis, but until the Catholic Church actually starts following what their new Pope is actually saying, it's all just verbal vomit designed to distract people while the same crap happens being the scenes.
34390
Post by: whembly
 streamdragon wrote:I want to like Franis. He seems like a great guy who really wants to make the Catholic Church a respectable group. The problem is, he's a fething hypocrite just like the rest. Considering the Catholic Church backed and largely influenced Croatia's ban on same sex marriage recently, his previous speech about not judging gays rings hollow. I want to like Francis, but until the Catholic Church actually starts following what their new Pope is actually saying, it's all just verbal vomit designed to distract people while the same crap happens being the scenes.
Um...wut? He never said that he'd be for Catholic marriages by gays. o.O Right?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
For a given value of "moral" , maybe, Whembly.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 whembly wrote: streamdragon wrote:I want to like Franis. He seems like a great guy who really wants to make the Catholic Church a respectable group.
The problem is, he's a fething hypocrite just like the rest. Considering the Catholic Church backed and largely influenced Croatia's ban on same sex marriage recently, his previous speech about not judging gays rings hollow.
I want to like Francis, but until the Catholic Church actually starts following what their new Pope is actually saying, it's all just verbal vomit designed to distract people while the same crap happens being the scenes.
Um...wut?
He never said that he'd be for Catholic marriages by gays.
o.O
Right?
While you are correct he has not come out in favor of gay marriage, he did comment about how the fight was consuming too much time and resources for the church, and that it should go back to the original message of loving everyone, sinner or saint, and focus on charitable causes.
Last I checked, banning gay marriage wasn't really a "charitable cause", nor "loving everyone, sinner or saint".
Keep in mind, that ban isn't for marriages in the Catholic Church. It's for the entire country of Croatia.
181
Post by: gorgon
The real problem -- in your case and in general with other people -- is that you took his comments to mean something more than what was said and intended.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 gorgon wrote:The real problem -- in your case and in general -- is that you took his comments to mean something more than what was said and intended.
I took his comments to be what they are: the direction that this man wants to take the Church. Pope or not, he is one man, and I understand he can not change the Catholic Church over night. Which is why I said that, despite not being a Catholic, I really want to like Pope Francis.
I suppose it makes calling him a hypocrite a little out of order, since it's not him actually going against what he himself said. The institution remains hypocritical though, as the new face it is presenting is 100% at odds with its actions.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?
respectfully, I won't want to know about his personal life thank you very much... 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
gorgon wrote:The real problem -- in your case and in general with other people -- is that you took his comments to mean something more than what was said and intended.
Edited, for commends below. Automatically Appended Next Post: streamdragon wrote: gorgon wrote:The real problem -- in your case and in general -- is that you took his comments to mean something more than what was said and intended.
I took his comments to be what they are: the direction that this man wants to take the Church. Pope or not, he is one man, and I understand he can not change the Catholic Church over night. Which is why I said that, despite not being a Catholic, I really want to like Pope Francis. I suppose it makes calling him a hypocrite a little out of order, since it's not him actually going against what he himself said. The institution remains hypocritical though, as the new face it is presenting is 100% at odds with its actions.
This clears things up. But yeah he's just 1 man, the leader can be good and just, but the organization can still be terrible in many regards. Also Frazz, he suspended a German Bishop for his lavious lifestyle.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
A Papal Manifesto is not exactly "off hand comments".
edit: er, you edited and now my top page comment remains here, making no sense, for all to see.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?
respectfully, I won't want to know about his personal life thank you very much...
Dirty... dirty mind.
Carry ON!
Here's that info: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/vatican-suspends-german-bishop-known-for-spending.html
27151
Post by: streamdragon
I think part of the issue that will seem odd to Americans, is that the German government collects taxes for the Catholic Church. So not only was he living an insanely lavish lifestyle, he was doing so at tax payer expense.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
I was referring to the comments about being slightly more okay with gay people than previous popes. If I recall his original comments on ( were made on an airplane and not originally a part of his manifesto, was something like, "Who am I to judge?").
But the article you linked does point out that he's not seeking to change the Church's stance on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc..., just that the Church shouldn't focus on them so much.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 Alfndrate wrote:
I was referring to the comments about being slightly more okay with gay people than previous popes. If I recall his original comments on ( were made on an airplane and not originally a part of his manifesto, was something like, "Who am I to judge?").
But the article you linked does point out that he's not seeking to change the Church's stance on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc..., just that the Church shouldn't focus on them so much.
Correct, which I cleared up in my other post. Again, I really want to like Pope Francis. I feel like he's a good first step in bringing the Catholic Church up to date with reality. Because prior to Francis, Catholic Charities threatened to stop helping the poor if DC passed Gay Marriage. They actually hated gays more than they loved the poor. And while Pope Francis claims to want to change that, actual reality conflicts with his wants.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Alternatively, by saying that the Church needs to focus less on those things he's shifting attention away from them. If the Church truly follows what he says in papal manifestos, they will (hopefully) be focused on other things allowing this stuff to be ignored by the Church at large. And it will remain to fringe groups to be loud and boisterous about such things.
62229
Post by: Minx
Alfndrate wrote:Also Frazz, he suspended a German Bishop for his lavious lifestyle.
He was suspended for creating negative publicity and will most likely find someplace else in the church to continue his lifestyle.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
streamdragon wrote:
I suppose it makes calling him a hypocrite a little out of order, since it's not him actually going against what he himself said. The institution remains hypocritical though, as the new face it is presenting is 100% at odds with its actions.
His words when Argentina was considering homosexual unions;
In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.
Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
From what I can understand of him, given the above quote and his recent statement, I would guess he's most assuredly against homosexual marriage--but understands the times (and seeks to grow the Church). If I were a Pope trying to grow Catholicism, I would not pick homosexual marriage as my line in the sand. That fight is pretty much over and on its way out.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.
Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.
Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.
The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 schadenfreude wrote:As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.
Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.
Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.
The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.
YES
1206
Post by: Easy E
schadenfreude wrote:As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.
Libertarianism can not fail! It can only BE failed.
37231
Post by: d-usa
More pope stories:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4373884
A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the "Almoner of His Holiness," raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true. A knowledgable source in Rome told The Huffington Post that "Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women."
Krajewski earlier said, “When I say to him ‘I’m going out into the city this evening’, there’s the constant risk that he will come with me," and he merely smiled and ducked the question when reporters asked him point-blank whether the Pope accompanied him into the city.
He's not the only Pope known for nocturnal wanderings. There are stories of Pope John XIII sneaking out to enjoy the beauty of Rome in the evenings, and reports tell of Pope Pius XII dressing as a Franciscan during WWII to help smuggle Rome's Jewish population to safety. More recently, Pope Benedict XVI popped out unannounced to visit an art exhibit.
When Pope Francis was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, he was known to sneak out at night to break bread with the homeless, sitting with them on the street and eating with them to show that they were loved.
And we love him for doing it now.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
So clearly he has to eat babies or something. Too good a pope to be true.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Babies! The other other white meat! Get in mah belly!
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
schadenfreude wrote:As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.
Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.
Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.
The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.
I like this. I don't agree with some points, but you put your point elequently yet easy to understand.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
schadenfreude wrote:Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups. So that's not quite true.
Edit: Sounded way meaner than I meant it to be.
Also: I agree with the many parts of your post, though I think the "protect corporations" thing is wrong. Corporate taxes are at almost historically low rates in the US right now.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
streamdragon wrote: schadenfreude wrote:Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups. So your statement is a flat out lie.
This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Co'tor Shas wrote: streamdragon wrote: schadenfreude wrote:Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups.
So your statement is a flat out lie.
This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.
There are multiple problems, but yes, the fact that .1% of the US population controls trillions in offshore accounts for the sole purpose of some schwanz measuring contest is an issue.
Also, frankly, the idea that "the market will correct" is just beyond naive.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Given that the system is set up to return the most money to the people with the most money to invest, it would be silly to think the market will correct itself.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
streamdragon wrote:Also, frankly, the idea that "the market will correct" is just beyond naive.
Andrew Ryan wrote:"I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky. But there is something more powerful than each of us, a combination of our efforts, a Great Chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you different either has his hand in your pocket, or a pistol to your neck."
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
 Kilkrazy wrote:Given that the system is set up to return the most money to the people with the most money to invest, it would be silly to think the market will correct itself.
Agreed. Also, even if a self correcting market were found to be true, would we really want it? I don't see anything advantageous about making an entire generation suffer while the market self corrects--if a government can help ease the pain in the interim.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Indeed, we saw during the "Triumph of Capitalism", or Global Economic Crisis as some people call it, what is the effect on the rich of serious economic turmoil.
For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who in a few years turned the Royal Bank of Scotland from one of the UK's most successful banks, into a smoking hole in the ground, was punished with a 7 million pound retirement fund while 80% of the bank's debts were assumed by the UK taxpayer.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Easy E wrote: schadenfreude wrote:As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.
Libertarianism can not fail! It can only BE failed.
Well, before spewing ideological nonsense, perhaps you should take a look at the different libertarian policies, you know. Education : 1a) The party's official platform states that education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of school choice. Oh come on, can you please try harder? One excellent school exist. We open a new terrible one. Diversity went up, overall quality of the student body went down. Even if there was a consumer's choice to the same extent as there is in goods, it still wouldn't have an influence on the first school's teaching quality.
1b) Seeing the education of children as a parental responsibility, the party would give authority to parents to determine the education of their children at their expense without interference from government. Therefore making children even more at the mercy of their parents. You know that most parents are, like most people, of mediocre intelligence, right?
1c) Libertarians have expressed that parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. Huh, do you mean that parents should provide all funds? Because that just straight up screw the poor. Or do you mean that all funds expended in school should be approved and veted by each and every parents? Because that's just nuts.
Environment : 2a) The Libertarian platform supports a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of natural resources, believing that private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining such natural resources. So, no thought at all toward the fact that most owners will chose an immediate benefit over long term ones?
2b) The party has also expressed that "governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to the environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection."Well, given that humans have had a terrible track record regarding the environnment, yes. Still, this is at best a petition of principle.
2c) The party contends that the environment is best protected when individual rights pertaining to natural resources are clearly defined and enforced. Huh, okay, like every one else? And why individual rights and not collective rights?
2d) The party also contends that free markets and property rights (implicitly, without government intervention) will stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect the environment and ecosystem because environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. And why can't the government play the part of environmental advocates here?
Fiscal policies : 3a) The Libertarian Party opposes all government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services Including drugs that have not been approved yet?
3b) The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System. Now, there's a good argument to say that block grants are problematic, but seriously? Let's close the TANF because feth the poor.
3c) The party does not feel that government should incur debt and supports the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced preferably by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. Yes, because liberals or cons get a boner every time they raise taxes.
3d) Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Which could never ever lead to cartels or monopolies. Never.
3e) While the party defends the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies, it opposes government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Therefore putting you at a terrible disadvantage in comparison to those countries that will subsidize their business, labor, etc. You'd think you'd have learned, after we canucks fethed you over with the softwood lumber dispute. But by all means, keep making your own industries more vulnerable to foreign exploitation
Health Care : 4a) The Libertarian Party favors a free-market health care system, without government oversight, approval, regulation, and licensing. Like, you mean, no regulation on medical services, or just on the overarching system of payment for medical expenses? Because if its the former, that just monstrous. If it's the second, well, it's also pretty monstrous.
4b) The party states that it "recognizes the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the amount of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."Again, with no regard to those drugs and medecine being pre-approved? That's nuts.
4c) They support the repeal of all social insurance policies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. i.e. feth the poor. Once again.
Immigration and trade : 5a) The Libertarian Party consistently lobbies for the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. This is because their platform states that "political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries". Huh. You realize most impediments to free trade won't come, in the case of the U.S, from your side of the border?
5b) To promote economic freedom, they demand the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, the party encourages control over the entry into the country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. Something is either unrestricted or it isn't.
Employment : 6a) The Libertarian Party supports the repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment while opposing government-fostered/forced retirement and heavy interference in the bargaining process.
6b) The party supports the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and believes that employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. Therefore managing in both making unions useless and promoting a more volatile work environnment
Retirement : 7a) The party believes that retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.
7b) The Libertarians feel that the proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals, believing members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. Thus, putting the poor at the mercy of those organisations, and giving power to those institutions over the State.
Social Issues : 8a) The Libertarian Party supports the legalization of all victimless crimes,[65] including drugs,[66][67][68][69] pornography,[66] prostitution,[66][67][68][69] polygamy,[70] gambling,[71] removal of restrictions on homosexuality,[68] opposes any kind of censorship and supports freedom of speech,[72] and supports the right to keep and bear arms [67] while opposing capital punishment.[73] Because it's impossible to say, for example, that pot shouldn't be illegal, but that crocodile should remain as such. No, such finer distinctions are just nonsense!
8b) The Libertarian Party's platform states: "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."Including deontological laws? I thought you guys were against corruption?
Your policies are not being implemented because the vast majority of them boils down to ideological ramblings with not a single thought to the pragmatic aspect of things.
68355
Post by: easysauce
thats kind of my point whembly,
even if the pope actually is meaning to be simply criticizing the excess or Èlegalized theftÈ that some would incorrectly label as capitalism,
the fact that a guy in the article you linked is only suspended instead of kicked out, is akin to how we fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100mill...
once the guy comes back from suspension, hes still got his opulence paid for on the tithers dime.
I dont get suspended for stealing... I get fired and go to jail... THATS the real problem with economics, be they in the church or white house or where ever.
Some pigs are more equal then others and can legally break the law
27151
Post by: streamdragon
easysauce wrote:
the fact that a guy in the article you linked is only suspended instead of kicked out, is akin to how we fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100mill...
I think I agree with what you're saying in the rest of your post, but I think you might be missing a word or something here.
We most certainly do not fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100 million. More like the other way around...
Edit:
@Kovnik - Even if I mostly agree re: libertarian politics, I think Easy E was being sarcastic there. Unless you're talking to schadenfreude, in which case, carry on!
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Kovnik Obama
I take my hat off to you.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.
I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I guess it depends if the libertarian is an anarchist or minarchist.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
streamdragon wrote:The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.
I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?
What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Co'tor Shas wrote: streamdragon wrote:The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.
I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?
What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!
Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: streamdragon wrote:The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.
I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?
What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!
Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.
IT WAS A JOKE. How did you not get that? 
5470
Post by: sebster
gorgon wrote:It often seems to me that atheists tend to proselytize more than most "religious" people.
That might be because if an atheist isn't making a big noise about it, you have no way of even learning they're atheist. Lots of atheists out there just minding their own business. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:I like this pope... but, the direction of this conversation I think is being misunderstood.
If anything...his stances seems more about consumerism as opposed to the classical capitalism arguments.
I think that's probably a bit of a distinction without difference. You can't really seperate consumerism from capitalism.
The key thing here is that he’s from the crony-capitalism capital of Argentina... anyone who has paid attention to this country would tell you that... also, I think he has mistaken that what went on in Argentina... is SOP for the operation of free markets elsewhere.
I don't think he's speach shows a level of detail where that really makes that much of a difference. He's really just gone for the 'extremes' argument - that capitalism taken to its extreme begins to do harm. Which is basically a vague notion that's impossible to argue with - the question really is where extreme starts.
However, throughout history, free-market principles has been a great driver of economic growth and can be argued that its also been a great driver of a more moral society. (I know I'm opening a can-o-worms here... but I challenge you to defy it! )
Interesting argument, on the moral part. My first thought is that morality is too vague and subjective for the point to be properly for or against... but I'd be interested in seeing how you try.
That said, ultimately it kind of doesn't matter whether as individuals we are more moral. What matters is people who were poor now have access to food and shelter. Whether that's because we are more moral and give them more, or because the system can offer them a well paying job where it couldn't before, or because overall society is so much wealthier that our charitable giving becomes more substantial (even though it's the same % of our income)... the end result is a rise in the quality of life for people at the bottom.
Additionally, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a pejorative used by many to describe a viewpoint they oppose. How is it any different than those on the right referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories as well. Call it for what this is....
Trickle-down is the term given by the right to a theory they embraced (and still largely do).
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Co'tor Shas wrote: cincydooley wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: streamdragon wrote:The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.
I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?
What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!
Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.
IT WAS A JOKE. How did you not get that?
I Got that it was trying to be a joke. But jokes usually work better when they attempt to be funny and make sense. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote: gorgon wrote:It often seems to me that atheists tend to proselytize more than most "religious" people.
That might be because if an atheist isn't making a big noise about it, you have no way of even learning they're atheist. Lots of atheists out there just minding their own business.
[.
To be fair, there are plenty of Catholics doing the exact same thing. Though I'm technically a very bad catholic because I slept with my wife before we were married and don't give a gak who wants to marry who.
5470
Post by: sebster
schadenfreude wrote:Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
The idea of protecting corporations makes little sense, and even less sense from a libertarian point of view. If it has a product that people want, then the jobs and greater flow on effects to the economy will happen.
The only time you'd look to change that is when you talk about start up industries or building an infrastructure base... but those ideas deal with externalities and public good concepts, and lots of other things that libertarian economics is pretty dedicated to ignoring.
The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.
While I agree that libertarians are basically a political non-presence, there's more than one meaning to the term 'libertarian'. The pope is talking about certain policies that might not meet the purity test of committed libertarians, but are still far enough along the scale of right wing economics that people can call them libertarian and most people know what's being discussed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote:This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.
Not really. When Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations he wasn't suggesting an idea for people to try, he was observing what had already happened. Capitalist economics were emergent, not designed.
Nor was Smith at all opposed to the kinds of things that many today on the right wing hate so much. He believed in progressive taxation, that it was a duty of those who'd received more from the system to pay back in for the public good. Nor did he lie down at the altar of self-interest that you see so much today, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AgeOfEgos wrote:Agreed. Also, even if a self correcting market were found to be true, would we really want it? I don't see anything advantageous about making an entire generation suffer while the market self corrects--if a government can help ease the pain in the interim.
"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!
Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.
There is when you have to break a picket line.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote:To be fair, there are plenty of Catholics doing the exact same thing. Though I'm technically a very bad catholic because I slept with my wife before we were married and don't give a gak who wants to marry who.
My wife is technically a bad Catholic as well, what with us living together for more than a year before we married. Scandal!
And yeah, the vast majority of people of all stripes just keep to themselves. Maybe they'll talk about in conversation if it comes up, but they're not out there to force their views down anyone else's throat. The few that do look to tell everyone else their views are wrong, whether they're atheist or Catholic or whatever... the problem with those people isn't their belief, the problem is that they're jerks.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
And usually very loud.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
sebster wrote: schadenfreude wrote:Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
The idea of protecting corporations makes little sense, and even less sense from a libertarian point of view. If it has a product that people want, then the jobs and greater flow on effects to the economy will happen.
The only time you'd look to change that is when you talk about start up industries or building an infrastructure base... but those ideas deal with externalities and public good concepts, and lots of other things that libertarian economics is pretty dedicated to ignoring.
Corporations can make some pretty obscene amounts of money especially if you look at gross income. The first instinct of many people is to tax them and to not do so goes against instinct. Let's review what they can do with their money.
#1 Pay their CEO and upper management a huge and obscene bonus. That isn't really helping anybody but the CEO/upper management, but the pay can be taxed at a high rate as income so the government is going to get the money anyways unless the CEO takes stock options and sells it later or waits for dividends which brings me to #2
#2 Pay dividends. That's cool dividends and stock growth is what funds the 401ks of the middle class. Of course to make this work and help out the economy instead of the ultra wealthy that pay lower tax rates than their secretaries capital gains should be considered the same as income for taxes. Once again the government gets the money when it leaves the corporation.
#3 Grow the company. They can do this anyways without paying taxes but it takes armies of accountants and lobbyists and by the time the most powerful corporations are done buying politicians the government will end up paying the corporation money in subsidies.
When the government gets too much into a corporations business the corporation gets too much into the government's business. That arrangement hasn't been working out too well for us so far. It also just seems easier to me to nail the ultra wealthy by treating capital gains as normal income and increasing the alternative minimal tax, then the money corporations generate would get taxed when it goes to the stock holders.
5470
Post by: sebster
There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.
Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.
Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.
And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Haight wrote: cincydooley wrote: Haight wrote:
I'm pretty critical of the Catholic church as a general rule. As a recovering catholic, now atheist, I sorta delight in torturing my bible thumping relatives with the CC's near omnipresent nonsense.
".
Why? What purpose does that serve? I never understand this attitude.
Critical of the Catholic Church ? How much time ya got ? No seriously, the history of the Catholic Church has been highly questionable for centuries. The church does some good works. It has also done some incredibly heinous things, or stood by and watched as other incredibly heinous things were done.
Torturing my bible thumping relatives ?
I won't get into a lengthy treatise about it as if i described what i've seen perpetrated in the name of catholicism, most people would figure i was lying (and given the Church's track record, i think that's saying something). Non family can believe whatever they want (though i will admit, i can't help but roll my eyes inside when i hear anyone proselytize about any religion ... i think it's all nonsense, frankly) and i won't say a word -- it's their choice, and though I think it's both foolish and a form of brainwashing, hey, to each their own. If the only way you can sleep at night is to believe in some invisible, unprovable anthropomorphic grand being that chose to reveal himself to his creations only during the time of illiterate bronze age technology and never once again, since. Hey... sure.
The remaining members of my family that i still have contact with deserve every ounce of Theological torture i send their way. And i delight in giving it to them. It's a testament to the nature of organized religion that most debates i have with my relatives on the topic end with "Well, i can't prove that you're wrong, but i don't have to. I have Faith.".
Carefull there...you sound like so many ex-athiests/agnostic turned Christians who used to have the same outlook, and negative view of faith. In a few years you just may be looking back and laughing at yourself at how misguided you were.
GG
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
sebster wrote:There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.
Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.
Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.
And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.
Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.
I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.
I also believe in a smaller military, non interventionist foreign policy, protecting civil liberties with the 2nd amendment + equal rights for gays included, and ending prohibition. For that people call me crazy, why is that? Because huge chunks of the Libertarian party are crazy and hold views that are more extremist than the tea party. Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
schadenfreude wrote: sebster wrote:There's an inconsistency in your post, schaedenfreude. You dismiss money received just by the CEO and upper management as not helping anyone but them, but later on claim that money paid out in dividends works its way out in to the economy. Well what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if income to one source (middle class shareholders) can be recognised as being spent and benefitting the overall economy, then you have to credit income to company management in the same way.
Oh, and there's a small error in how you relate dividends and stock growth. Dividends actually reduce stock values... if that sounds confusing think of a company which is set to pay out a dividend of $1 per share on Tuesday, so if you own the share on Tuesday you get the share and all future earnings... and you get a $1. On Wednesday all you get is the share, meaning the benefit of owning the share has decreased by $1. What grows company value is earnings, or at least the expectation of future earnings.
Other than that, well I agree with your overall ideas about tax reform. Companies shouldn't pay tax.... well, more to the point any tax they do pay should be granted as a credit to shareholders, with the net effect that income earned by a company and paid out as dividends should end up being taxed just as any other revenue.
And yeah, I agree that capital gains should be taxed like any other revenue. Sure, the total gain needs to be adjusted for inflation, and the income spike should be smoothed over previous year's income, but there's no sensible reason to believe that lower capital gains rates magically drives up investment, the lower rate really is just a 'rich people are special' thing.
Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.
I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.
I also believe in a smaller military, non interventionist foreign policy, protecting civil liberties with the 2nd amendment + equal rights for gays included, and ending prohibition. For that people call me crazy, why is that? Because huge chunks of the Libertarian party are crazy and hold views that are more extremist than the tea party. Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.
Umm, prohibition has been ended for almost 100 years.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
change prohibition to "War on Drugs" and you'll get what he means. I.e. legalize the wacky tobaccy
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 Alfndrate wrote:
change prohibition to "War on Drugs" and you'll get what he means. I.e. legalize the wacky tobaccy
Well the "War on Drugs" was just really expensive grandstanding.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Not really considering the number of people killed every year by militarized police and over armed gangs, and the billions spent on arming those cops. Especially when it has next to know measurable or for that matter, useful, results.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
The war on drugs is basically a statement that the government is at war with it's own citizens, which is a pretty accurate description of drug prohibition.
Our first run at prohibition lasted 13 years going from 1920 to 1933 and was an unmitigated disaster. Our second attempt at prohibition started 42 years ago in 1971 and it's turned into a larger disaster than the 1st attempt. If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. The best way to point out the absurdity of drug prohibition is to imagine if we kept alcohol prohibition going from 1920 until 1962, imprisoned 1% of our population, and created a bloodbath on the scale that we are now seeing in Mexico.
5470
Post by: sebster
schadenfreude wrote:Inconsistencies are because I was operating under the assumption of progressive tax brackets. When money leaves a company and goes into the hands of the middle class it's really good for the economy, but not so much when it goes into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Progressive tax brackets can tax the ultra rich at a higher % when the money leaves the company, but when the company it's self is taxed the burden is a flat tax on all share holders regardless if they are ultra rich or middle class.
Your inconsistency is in assuming money in the hands of the middle class is somehow better for the economy than money in the hands of the wealthy. It's all money and if it goes to Steve the labourer or John the trust fund baby, it's impact on the economy is the same in almost all market conditions.
I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, but not trickle down economics. Supply side works most efficiently when companies and the middle class gets the tax breaks, while tax breaks for the ultra wealthy produces diminished returns.
I don't think you entirely understand what supply side economics means. It isn't just tax cuts, it's an approach that says reform should make investment and production of goods easier, and then demand will look after itself.
Your points on making sure the benefits go to the middle class because they'll spend it etc... that's demand side economics.
Libertarians might someday get somewhere if we could tone down our ambitions because all our overly ambitious ramblings do is make us an easily mocked political whipping boy.
Libertarianism won't ever get anywhere. It's a thought bubble attached to a grossly simple view of the world. It simply has no real answers for the real world because it devotees aren't actually interested in fixing the complex problems of the real world. They simply want to be self-satisfied in the purity of their own intellectual position.
33125
Post by: Seaward
sebster wrote:Libertarianism won't ever get anywhere. It's a thought bubble attached to a grossly simple view of the world. It simply has no real answers for the real world because it devotees aren't actually interested in fixing the complex problems of the real world. They simply want to be self-satisfied in the purity of their own intellectual position.
It has answers. You just don't like them.
And that's fine. I find your ideology remarkably simple-minded, too.
5470
Post by: sebster
It isn't a case of liking or disliking the answers, as much as the answers are in such a narrow band that they end up meaningless. It's like if you're in a film group, and one guy just wants to about Godfather II the whole time. I could agree with him that it's a marvellous film, but talking about that film and no other for session after session is so narrow that it becomes a pointless exercise very quickly. Point being, there is a hell of a lot more to economics than consumer choice and an assumption that markets are perfect as long as we just pretend they are. And that's fine. I find your ideology remarkably simple-minded, too.
I don't mean it as a personal attack. I can see why you'd take it as one, so I understand your response, but really honestly believe me when I say that I'm not trying to have a go at you or any other libertarian, I'm just trying to explain why libertarianism has never attracted much of a following, and why that isn't going to change. It's a theory that speaks to the issues of a very particular set of middle class people and no-one else.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Strange that I was a libertarian when I was poor then.
5470
Post by: sebster
Given that class is about a lot more than income, that isn't strange at all.
Nor is it strange that that's all you managed to comment on from my post. Finding one minor and unsuccessful nitpick is all too common a practice from you.
33125
Post by: Seaward
sebster wrote:Given that class is about a lot more than income, that isn't strange at all.
Well, if that's how we're going to play it, I know a lot of upper class libertarians, too.
Nor is it strange that that's all you managed to comment on from my post. Finding one minor and unsuccessful nitpick is all too common a practice from you.
What's the point of anything else? You're not salvageable.
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Well, if that's how we're going to play it, I know a lot of upper class libertarians, too.
Yes, we're going to play it so that words are used as per their common meanings. Breakthrough concept for the internet, but I reckon we can handle it.
And I know a millionaire socialist. Lives down the road. His dad used to own the market garden that my house is now built on. But that doesn't mean socialism isn't primarily a middle class concern, because I understand that one example doesn't discount a rule, and that any look at a group of libertarians will find a bunch of people who's biggest concern in life is being unable to leverage their personal incomes to their own benefit as much as possible.
What's the point of anything else? You're not salvageable.
You could try and explain how a focus about freedom of choice built around an assumption of a perfect market is in fact a message with potential for a broad appeal, enough to make it politically relevant. Or you could keep pissing about on nonsense and taking this whole thing as a direct personal attack if you want, I'm not the boss of you.
33125
Post by: Seaward
sebster wrote:Yes, we're going to play it so that words are used as per their common meanings. Breakthrough concept for the internet, but I reckon we can handle it.
And I know a millionaire socialist. Lives down the road. His dad used to own the market garden that my house is now built on. But that doesn't mean socialism isn't primarily a middle class concern, because I understand that one example doesn't discount a rule, and that any look at a group of libertarians will find a bunch of people who's biggest concern in life is being unable to leverage their personal incomes to their own benefit as much as possible.
See? This is what I mean. You honestly believe that's the grand sum of libertarianism. You've decided to remain willfully ignorant, in this as in so many other things, so what, precisely, is the point?
You could try and explain how a focus about freedom of choice built around an assumption of a perfect market is in fact a message with potential for a broad appeal, enough to make it politically relevant. Or you could keep pissing about on nonsense and taking this whole thing as a direct personal attack if you want, I'm not the boss of you.
Nor anyone, I would suspect. But no, that message would not have the potential for broad appeal. It involves people losing.
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:See? This is what I mean. You honestly believe that's the grand sum of libertarianism. You've decided to remain willfully ignorant, in this as in so many other things, so what, precisely, is the point?
It isn't the grand sum, but its a cornerstone on which much of the rest is dependant. It's kind of bizarre that you can't see that, to be honest.
Anyhow, you were right about this being a waste of time.
Nor anyone, I would suspect. But no, that message would not have the potential for broad appeal. It involves people losing.
Yeah, you've claimed that before, to which I responded, and the whole thing ended up much like nonsense, with you giving pithy little non-answers and me trying to get some kind of substantial comment out of you. That was a waste of time, and as you've already noted, this is shaping up to be a waste of time as well. Because you self-identify as libertarian, and get pissy when someone points out a problem with libertarianism while talking to a different poster... but you don't actually want to defend your beliefs. Waste. Of. Time.
33125
Post by: Seaward
sebster wrote:It isn't the grand sum, but its a cornerstone on which much of the rest is dependant. It's kind of bizarre that you can't see that, to be honest.
Well, I think the disconnect may be occurring in that I know what I'm talking about, and you fervently believe you do.
Yeah, you've claimed that before, to which I responded, and the whole thing ended up much like nonsense, with you giving pithy little non-answers and me trying to get some kind of substantial comment out of you. That was a waste of time, and as you've already noted, this is shaping up to be a waste of time as well. Because you self-identify as libertarian, and get pissy when someone points out a problem with libertarianism while talking to a different poster... but you don't actually want to defend your beliefs. Waste. Of. Time.
Oh, this is far from pissy, my friend. This is just trying to help the ill-informed and ill-educated along against my better (and earlier) judgment.
Tell you what. When you want "substantial commentary," you're welcome to go actually learn about what it is you're trying to discuss. Sweeping in with vague, half-assed generalizations like, "Libertarianism doesn't answer any questions, hurrrr" isn't exactly fertile grounds for serious discussion. There's no point in me wasting good material clubbing a baby seal. Until you have half a clue, it'd just be pearls before swine.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Oh you two. It's like a make cute scene from a RomCom!
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I think we're done here.
In the future, best to keep quote debates to PM--and keep them a bit friendlier (or simply use the ignore feature if your views are so dramatically opposed).
Thanks,
Ryan
|
|
