Eradicate The "Left Libertarian" Nonsense

[osan]

My guess is that most of us have shifted from one segment of this wheel to another at some point in our lives. Some of us probably can identify with several segments at once depending on our current moods.

Because of that, I'm pretty open to working with people on other ends of the wheel when our positions align. And when they don't align, I try not to get into divisions that would turn them off.

The only ones who really get under my skin are the ones who are pretending to share small government ideals, but just want to sow division among the ranks. The ones who put personality over principles every time.

All shapes and sizes? Sure. Some are skinny, others fat. That's about the gamut of variance for anything even remotely "libertarian". Those who would say "I'm a communist libertarian" should be involuntarily de-sexed so that they become incapable of propagating The Stupid into yet another generation. 1/2

Freedom. That's the long and the short of libertarianism proper. All the rest is putrefaction of the term. "OOOOoooo look at MMMMmmmmmeeeee everyone, I'm a left libertarian and I want the right to suck my goldfish's weenie..."

Seriously, we should just buy Africa and put all the stupid people there and leave them to their own devices... supervised, of course, as they could not be trusted not to manage global destruction via The Stupid.

Freedom is governed by natural law, which is the Law of the Freeman (what I generally refer to as "Law" [sic], and carries but three precepts:

1. Be good for your word. Covers contracts and other agreements.
2. Do no unjust harm. Covers criminal acts and torts.
3. Make whole those whom you unjustly damage. Covers amending one's ill-deeds of intent or accident.

That's all she wrote, and none of it is rocket surgery.

That we have convoluted things in so buggered a manner as we now find statutory non-Law, is indicative of the depths of our corruption as a people. There appears to be no bottom to our perdition, on the average. Humanity: it's own worst enemy.

 

[Invisible Man]

Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains.

If this is so, then we don't need the state to impose borders on us. And in fact, those state imposed borders will always tend to impede our natural territoriality, rather than support it.

 

[jmdrake]

Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant $#@!s who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.

The words "commune" and "communist" come from the same root. Someone who believes in voluntary communal living could be considered an anarco communist. That's how the early Christian church was set up.

 

[osan]

If this is so, then we don't need the state to impose borders on us. And in fact, those state imposed borders will always tend to impede our natural territoriality, rather than support it.

I would tend to agree with this, but since when did "state" have anything to do with the good between men and their inherent natures? "State" is all about tyranny. The very concept of "state" is repellent to Freemen and attractive only to Weakmen.

 

[osan]

The words "commune" and "communist" come from the same root. Someone who believes in voluntary communal living could be considered an anarco communist. That's how the early Christian church was set up.

You are employing a different sense of the term, and in fact "communism" has practically nothing to do with "commune" in reality. What you have outlined here is a prime example of the abuse of language, much like "For The People Act", which is in no conceivable way for the people, but rather the tyrants. Communists are pathological liars by their nature precisely because they are thieves. They want to take what is yours, preferably with your consent, but will employ force if need be. In either case, they are incentivized to lie to and bullshit those around them.

In the case of voluntary handing over of the goods, Theye need a line of shit that convinces the rest to put out. "Blah blah equality blah blah blather blah..." The dumbasses and opportunist-parasites go, "OOOOOooooo... we're all EEEEEEEEEKWAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL... Sign me up!"

In the case of having to use force, Theye similarly need a line of shit that enables them to rationalize and justify their felonies.

And so the methods of NewSpeak come into play, and Orwell didn't invent a whit of it, but gave it a good name. Define terms to suit one's goals, even if it means mangling words and language to the detriment of all. It's all good if it gets you what you want, consequences be damned. This is what Theye do. It is ALL Theye do.

Communism has a very specific meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with "commune", "community", etc. It has everything to do with chicanery and bitter hatred or, far worse, utter indifference by one population to the rights and plights of another, and is thinly disguised as the precise opposite. Furthermore, the purported altruism of the hard-left commie is in fact one of the foulest of human obscenities of self-absorption, masquerading as compassion for one's fellow human beings. The claim of altruistic intent is a clear and infallible sign of malice and malignancy in a human being. I would prescribe the death penalty for any policital officeholder who would dare utter that word as the basis of any legislative effort. And no, I am not joking. "Altruism" is one of the most singularly spectacular lies of all human existence. It is a penultimate obscenity and should be stricken from human consciousness, as it describes an impossibility and labels it as some form of ultimate human virtue. Fie upon all who worship at that altar.

Orwell ID'd the strategy of linguistic trickery and it's attendant tactics with good precision. Your example of "commune" and "communism" fits that bill to a 'T'.

 

[ClaytonB]

You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.

r/Anarcho_Capitalism - The real libertarian sub on Reddit (NSFW!!)

 

[jmdrake]

No. You are arguing through projection. You are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing. Someone can believe in communal living without wanting to force communal living on others. Or someone can with to do communal living through government force. Your "wall of text" doesn't change your dishonesty in this regard.

You are employing a different sense of the term, and in fact "communism" has practically nothing to do with "commune" in reality. What you have outlined here is a prime example of the abuse of language, much like "For The People Act", which is in no conceivable way for the people, but rather the tyrants. Communists are pathological liars by their nature precisely because they are thieves. They want to take what is yours, preferably with your consent, but will employ force if need be. In either case, they are incentivized to lie to and bull$#@! those around them.

In the case of voluntary handing over of the goods, Theye need a line of $#@! that convinces the rest to put out. "Blah blah equality blah blah blather blah..." The dumbasses and opportunist-parasites go, "OOOOOooooo... we're all EEEEEEEEEKWAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL... Sign me up!"

In the case of having to use force, Theye similarly need a line of $#@! that enables them to rationalize and justify their felonies.

And so the methods of NewSpeak come into play, and Orwell didn't invent a whit of it, but gave it a good name. Define terms to suit one's goals, even if it means mangling words and language to the detriment of all. It's all good if it gets you what you want, consequences be damned. This is what Theye do. It is ALL Theye do.

Communism has a very specific meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with "commune", "community", etc. It has everything to do with chicanery and bitter hatred or, far worse, utter indifference by one population to the rights and plights of another, and is thinly disguised as the precise opposite. Furthermore, the purported altruism of the hard-left commie is in fact one of the foulest of human obscenities of self-absorption, masquerading as compassion for one's fellow human beings. The claim of altruistic intent is a clear and infallible sign of malice and malignancy in a human being. I would prescribe the death penalty for any policital officeholder who would dare utter that word as the basis of any legislative effort. And no, I am not joking. "Altruism" is one of the most singularly spectacular lies of all human existence. It is a penultimate obscenity and should be stricken from human consciousness, as it describes an impossibility and labels it as some form of ultimate human virtue. Fie upon all who worship at that altar.

Orwell ID'd the strategy of linguistic trickery and it's attendant tactics with good precision. Your example of "commune" and "communism" fits that bill to a 'T'.

 

[jmdrake]

r/Anarcho_Capitalism - The real libertarian sub on Reddit (NSFW!!)

That's nice. What would you call the early Christian church? It most certainly was not capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Acts 4:32-35.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

You certainly cannot call ^that capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. If this was a state requiring people to sell all of their possessions and keep them in common it would be classic statist communism. Instead, this was done voluntarily. No, the people weren't forced to sell their possessions and let the church distribute to who had need. They chose to do it. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter and claimed they had donated all when they had only donated a portion, this is what Peter told them:

Acts 5:3-5
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

I guess [MENTION=25257]osan[/MENTION] thinks the Bible is "newspeak." I dunno.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Secondly, the open borders deal is a whole other kettle of rotting-in-the-sun fish. Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains. Therefore, to go against our own nature by dispensing with borders is insane. It is tantamount to dispensing with our identities. ...

Kind of depends upon what you consider "your" territory.

...
His parents, Myrna and Jim Bennett, are American but now live in Haifa.
...
His parents are graduates of the University of California, Berkeley, and were "left-wingers" until they moved to Israel and embraced nationalism, his mother told Haaretz.

"In the US, we were against the Vietnam War. We went to Berkeley. We were automatically like left-wingers. When we came to Israel, I felt I loved the place I was living in," she said in a 2013 interview.

 

[ClaytonB]

That's nice. What would you call the early Christian church? It most certainly was not capitalistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, that's an interesting but unrelated question. AC is the idea that law and security can be (and should be) produced on the market. There is a book called The Law of the Somalis which documents how law is produced in traditional Somali law, called Xeer. Many people do not realize that the Gospel reached parts of east Africa possibly as early as the writings of Paul (cf the Ethiopian eunuch), so the knee-jerk reaction of waving away Xeer as "barbaric/pagan" or "probably Islamic" is incorrect. In fact, the book explains that the type of law that the Somalis practice is called kritarchy which literally means "rule by judges". Recognize that from the Bible? Yes, that's the original form of government that God established under Moses -- hence, the book of Judges.

As for capitalism, there is nothing anti-capitalist about Scripture. The organization of the church, and the organization of the economy are obviously separate things. The church is the new people of the Lord -- word-search "cut off people" in the Old Testament and compare to Matthew 18. While there is some interaction between these spheres, of course, they are separate. A merchant does not go to the temple to do business, he goes to the market. So the church is not and never was about the organization of the economy.

Note that I am using "capitalism" in its original definition which means private-property rights and the right to exchange freely in the market (unhampered by strong-men/thugs) which inevitably results in the widespread accumulation of savings, that is, capital. The usage of "capitalism" nowadays is almost synonymous with "nepotism".

While I think that AC raises many interesting challenges to many prevailing ideas in libertarian thinking, I don't consider myself an anarcho-capitalist per se. I'm a follower of Jesus. But if you held me at gunpoint and forced me to pick an "-ism" label for my political views, it would be AC.

 

[osan]

Kind of depends upon what you consider "your" territory.

We could go down that pedantic path, but to what end? Pardon me, but that response sounds eerily similar to the brands of rationale used by the hard-left to justify their crimes against humanity. They pull that brand of thing all the time. Generally speaking, I believe people know when they are being genuine and when they are being disingenuous. Few of us fail to see the bullshit and baloney spewed by those who choose to accept absurdity [X] for no other reason than that it gets them what they think they want.

And yes, people do that sort of thing all the time, but that isn't really territorial behavior, but rather blind avarice being masqueraded as such.

 

[osan]

No. You are arguing through projection. You are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing. Someone can believe in communal living without wanting to force communal living on others. Or someone can with to do communal living through government force. Your "wall of text" doesn't change your dishonesty in this regard.

I'm doing no such thing. You are misusing words. Communism has nothing to do with communal anything, save communal poverty and communal force of the "state" against the individual. "Communism" is jargon. The term was foisted upon the world by a raft of raving lunatics and has nothing to do with community, communes, communion, and so forth. It has everything to do with painting misleading pictures of false utopias and using the sword to force people into acting as if their stoogery was ultimate paradise. An analogous effect would be seen were I to be stabbing you though the neck repeatedly with a large knife while telling you how much I love and treasure you. The words and what people have been lead to believe they imply turn out to be diametric opposites of the accompanying reality.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, that's an interesting but unrelated question. AC is the idea that law and security can be (and should be) produced on the market. There is a book called The Law of the Somalis which documents how law is produced in traditional Somali law, called Xeer. Many people do not realize that the Gospel reached parts of east Africa possibly as early as the writings of Paul (cf the Ethiopian eunuch), so the knee-jerk reaction of waving away Xeer as "barbaric/pagan" or "probably Islamic" is incorrect. In fact, the book explains that the type of law that the Somalis practice is called kritarchy which literally means "rule by judges". Recognize that from the Bible? Yes, that's the original form of government that God established under Moses -- hence, the book of Judges.

I'm quite familiar with the fact that the gospel reached Africa and the oldest Christian church in the world is in Ethiopia. And I don't know many Christians who aren't familiar with the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. That said "capitalism" as we now know it didn't exist on a large scale until the 16th century. You can't have anti-capitalism without capitalism.

As for capitalism, there is nothing anti-capitalist about Scripture. The organization of the church, and the organization of the economy are obviously separate things.

A) That's a straw man argument. I never said there was anything anti-capitalist in Scripture. But the early Christian church was not capitalist.
B) It's false to say "the organization of the church and the organization of the economy are two separate things." Going all the way back to Moses there were religious laws about economics, such as the fact that Jews could not charge Jews interest. By the way, modern capitalism cannot exist without interest. That's the point. Letting money work for you. Capitalism is more than just using money as a means of exchange or having a market. While you can't have capitalism without market forces, you can have market forces without capitalism. Feudalism predated capitalism in Europe but there were markets.

The church is the new people of the Lord -- word-search "cut off people" in the Old Testament and compare to Matthew 18. While there is some interaction between these spheres, of course, they are separate. A merchant does not go to the temple to do business, he goes to the market. So the church is not and never was about the organization of the economy.

LOL. Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple so clearly ^that is not true. But more importantly, the same laws of Moses that you referenced at the beginning of your post laid out how the Lord wanted commerce to be done. So from the beginning of the Old Testament church, which predated Jesus by thousands of years, the church was about the organization of the economy.

Note that I am using "capitalism" in its original definition which means private-property rights and the right to exchange freely in the market (unhampered by strong-men/thugs) which inevitably results in the widespread accumulation of savings, that is, capital. The usage of "capitalism" nowadays is almost synonymous with "nepotism".

You can't make up your definitions as you go along. I mean you can, but that's not a legitimate way to debate an issue. [MENTION=25257]osan[/MENTION] wants to restrict the definition of communism to not mean what it literately means and only ascribe to it a negative "chairman Mao" connotation. You're kind of doing the same thing. Regardless the early Christian church operated on an economy that voluntarily dispensed with private property. I'm not sure what you want to call it, but the honest thing to call that is communism. The reason some right wing libertarians use to justify what happened to the native Americans is that they (supposedly) had no sense of private property rights. (Actually the Aztecs and Mayans did and they practised a brutal form of feudalism). But many Native tribes had collective "happy hunting grounds" that were held in common among the members of the tribe. So it was a collective or communal (communist) property right.

While I think that AC raises many interesting challenges to many prevailing ideas in libertarian thinking, I don't consider myself an anarcho-capitalist per se. I'm a follower of Jesus. But if you held me at gunpoint and forced me to pick an "-ism" label for my political views, it would be AC.

I don't think that being an AC and a follower of Jesus are mutually exclusive. In fact I know it's not. Note that I quoted where Peter told Ananias and Saphira that not only did they not have to sell their property but they could have also kept the proceeds of the money if they wished. The early church was motivated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to by force, to hold things in common. But you also see example of Christians in Acts engaging in commerce like Lydia the seller of purple or Paul himself being a tent maker.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm doing no such thing. You are misusing words. Communism has nothing to do with communal anything, save communal poverty and communal force of the "state" against the individual.

That's your dishonest definition. You are forcing the word "state" on something that doesn't require a state to exist.

The Diggers of England are considered early precursors of anarco communists. No state required.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism#Early_precursors

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We could go down that pedantic path, but to what end? Pardon me, but that response sounds eerily similar to the brands of rationale used by the hard-left to justify their crimes against humanity. They pull that brand of thing all the time. Generally speaking, I believe people know when they are being genuine and when they are being disingenuous. Few of us fail to see the bullshit and baloney spewed by those who choose to accept absurdity [X] for no other reason than that it gets them what they think they want.

And yes, people do that sort of thing all the time, but that isn't really territorial behavior, but rather blind avarice being masqueraded as such.

It's just an example of a hypocritical double standard, that happened to be handy as it was posted yesterday.

As the thread revolves around the "left", and the libertarian division between right and left almost always includes border and immigration policy, it seemed relevant. But yes, the nation for comparison to the US is irrelevant. It could be any other nation, where someone on the left in the US wants unlimited immigration for the US, but supports strong border and immigration controls for another nation.

It could be Korea. It could be Taiwan. It could be Ireland. It could be Ukraine. It could be the borders between India, Pakistan or China. The point being that some persons and politicians in the US that are decidedly on the left can hold this double standard.

 

[Invisible Man]

the libertarian division between right and left almost always includes border and immigration policy

I don't think this is accurate.

There is constant arguing of right libertarians among themselves about immigration, with the majority of them being against state restriction of immigration, and a vocal minority of them being in favor of it. But as far as I have seen, this is an in-house debate among right libertarians.

When it comes to the differences between right libertarians (what we here typically just call "libertarians") and left libertarians (what we here typically just call "communists" and would never consider libertarians) the distinctions are much more basic issues of whether or not private property and capitalism are ethical. But I think that within communist (i.e. left libertarian) thought, immigration policies are debated there as well.

But to take repurpose the term "left libertarian" for those right libertarians (i.e. free market capitalist libertarians) who oppose state restrictions of immigration, is to muddy the waters of both debates.

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm quite familiar with the fact that the gospel reached Africa and the oldest Christian church in the world is in Ethiopia. And I don't know many Christians who aren't familiar with the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. That said "capitalism" as we now know it didn't exist on a large scale until the 16th century. You can't have anti-capitalism without capitalism.

One of the reasons that I tend to shy away from discussions of "-isms" is that any given "-ism" can mean a host of different things, depending on what place, time, group or even individual you happen to be talking about. I'm not going to try to defend the label "capitalism" (there are others better qualified to do that), but if you're determined to have a debate, we can break capitalism down into its conceptual principles and I will defend those:

1) Self-ownership (and private-property rights, by extension).
2) The "rule of first-use", or "homesteading" or "original appropriation" -- whoever starts using an otherwise unowned resource (and does not abandon it), owns it.
3) Free exchange -- anyone may freely exchange with anyone else any of their respective goods/services on any mutually agreeable terms. (This is actually a corollary of 1&2 but it deserves to be spelled out explicitly.)

Does the Bible deny self-ownership? No, quite the opposite, God is the only truly lasting foundation for the concept of self-ownership.

Does the Bible deny the rule of first use? No, God commanded Adam and Eve to "subdue the earth" which is the principle of homesteading -- go out, find something that is not subdued (not being used) and subdue it (put it to use).

Does the Bible deny free exchange? No. "If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed." (John 8:36) We are free to engage in any kind of exchange we like. "Yeah, well what about prostitution??" Prostitution is not an exchange of something that the prostitute owns outright, because they are made in the image of God. Therefore, an act of desecrating the image of God is not free-exchange-- if we're going to analyze it in commercial terms, it is actually a kind of theft of what is sacred to God.

A) That's a straw man argument. I never said there was anything anti-capitalist in Scripture. But the early Christian church was not capitalist.
B) It's false to say "the organization of the church and the organization of the economy are two separate things." Going all the way back to Moses there were religious laws about economics, such as the fact that Jews could not charge Jews interest.

There is some overlap. But "some overlap" is not a sufficient condition to say "Hey, this is how a church was run in the first century... therefore, Christianity=communism." It's blatantly illogical.

By the way, modern capitalism cannot exist without interest.

*shrug -- it also can't exist without a central bank. Modern capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism proper (points 1-3 above), it's just cronyism, nepotism and corporatism. State power masquerading as "private venture".

That's the point. Letting money work for you.

This is a gross over-simplification. The difference between capitalism proper -- that is, the theory of human economics developed by the early classical liberal economists -- and modern "capitalism" is that the former is based on natural investment with risk, whereas the latter is based on risk-free or near-risk-free growth. Everyone who has managed to save $1,000 wants to rest on their laurels and be showered with cash income for the rest of their natural life in reward for their great achievement. It's a fantasy ride called "Wall Street" and, behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain is the Federal Reserve. It's amazing how printing infinity cash can permit you to create any illusion you want to create...

Capitalism is more than just using money as a means of exchange or having a market. While you can't have capitalism without market forces, you can have market forces without capitalism. Feudalism predated capitalism in Europe but there were markets.

The big difference between capitalist and non-capitalist systems is the secure ownership of the proceeds of your own labor and investments, as well as the freedom to exchange goods and services unhampered. The more these two great principles are eroded, the more socialistic the economic order will become. And note that socialism is not some kind of "exemption" from economic laws -- every law of economics continues to operate inexorably, no matter what madness people institute as government policy, just as the law of gravity will inexorably pull you to your death no matter what you believe when you leap over the cliff. Socialism merely substitutes the waiting queue for price-tags as a "rationing" mechanism. The fact of scarcity itself is not altered in the slightest by socialist policy.

LOL. Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple so clearly ^that is not true. But more importantly, the same laws of Moses that you referenced at the beginning of your post laid out how the Lord wanted commerce to be done. So from the beginning of the Old Testament church, which predated Jesus by thousands of years, the church was about the organization of the economy.

This is what I like to call "hand-waving theology" -- you're not even making an attempt at being historically or theologically accurate. There are almost as many errors in the quoted text as there are words -- and, no, I'm not going to write an encyclopedia here unpacking all your errors.

You can't make up your definitions as you go along. I mean you can, but that's not a legitimate way to debate an issue. [MENTION=25257]osan[/MENTION] wants to restrict the definition of communism to not mean what it literately means and only ascribe to it a negative "chairman Mao" connotation. You're kind of doing the same thing.

As I said, I'm not interested in trying to defend the term "capitalism." What it has been used to mean by many economists -- certainly anyone in the Austrian tradition -- is what I specified above (points 1-3).

Regardless the early Christian church operated on an economy that voluntarily dispensed with private property.

This is astoundingly false. The writings of the church fathers are filled with many kinds of fallacies (after all, they didn't have even have access to simple tools like dictionaries, let alone Google search), including economic fallacies. But these fallacies should not be aggrandized beyond what they are -- I am not aware of any theologian within the broad tent of orthodoxy who has argued against personal ownership of property or free exchange of goods and services. Please do name one! Gnostics need not apply...

I'm not sure what you want to call it, but the honest thing to call that is communism.

I guess this is the point where I'm just going to have to directly check your allegiances -- see my signature, "Jesus Is Lord", yay or nay? You're so far out in left field that I'm inclined to throw you a life-ring but I'm not going to waste time throwing a life-ring to somebody who's just trying to lob firebombs at the Church...

The reason some right wing libertarians use to justify what happened to the native Americans is...

Frankly, I don't care. Such people are enemies of the Gospel, I don't care what "-ism" or "-ian" label they apply to themselves.

I don't think that being an AC and a follower of Jesus are mutually exclusive. In fact I know it's not. Note that I quoted where Peter told Ananias and Saphira that not only did they not have to sell their property but they could have also kept the proceeds of the money if they wished.

You just refuted your entire post with your last sentence...

The early church was motivated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to by force, to hold things in common. But you also see example of Christians in Acts engaging in commerce like Lydia the seller of purple or Paul himself being a tent maker.

I'm going to assume from your appeal to the Holy Spirit that you are a believer... this is spoken charitably so please take it that way: you (like many Christian commentators on political and economic affairs) are inverting the structure of the Creation by appealing to secular categories in order to explain the administration of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ -- the Body of God! -- and the idea that the economy is a body, or vice-versa, is bonkers. So to make this unjustified leap from "they held all things in common" to Christianity is communist is just bonkers. It's stupendously irresponsible but I don't necessarily think it's your fault because this kind of sloppy, irresponsible thinking has become commonplace today.

The administration of the Church stands strictly over and above any fleshly concern, including politics and economics. The authors of the New Testament openly despised the political machinations of their time, following the example of Jesus who defied Pilate with silence, and whose example was repeated over and over through Church history from the early Roman believers fed to the lions down to the Church in China which is being subjected to the most outrageous persecution in human history. In almost every time and place since Jesus walked the Earth, the preaching of the Gospel has been illegal, and yet believers have done it anyway because human laws cannot countermand the law of God. The laws of economics, at least, are not arbitrary as political "laws" are, but even economic law is not a regulatory principle within the Church. Nor even physical law, because we deny the power of death by virtue of the Resurrection.

This idea that "Christianity is communist" that you're spouting in this thread is astounding to hear from someone who claims to recognize the supernatural, guiding work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the Creation at large.

If that's coming on too strong, then maybe the discussion should be broken off into a separate thread and slowed down to a careful, point-by-point discussion of reasons, claims and facts rather than turning into yet one more polarized verbal-jousting tournament of my "-ism" versus your "-ism"...

 

[jmdrake]

One of the reasons that I tend to shy away from discussions of "-isms" is that any given "-ism" can mean a host of different things, depending on what place, time, group or even individual you happen to be talking about. I'm not going to try to defend the label "capitalism" (there are others better qualified to do that), but if you're determined to have a debate, we can break capitalism down into its conceptual principles and I will defend those:

1) Self-ownership (and private-property rights, by extension).
2) The "rule of first-use", or "homesteading" or "original appropriation" -- whoever starts using an otherwise unowned resource (and does not abandon it), owns it.
3) Free exchange -- anyone may freely exchange with anyone else any of their respective goods/services on any mutually agreeable terms. (This is actually a corollary of 1&2 but it deserves to be spelled out explicitly.)

Does the Bible deny self-ownership? No, quite the opposite, God is the only truly lasting foundation for the concept of self-ownership.

I am not sure if you know enough of the Bible to try to talk about what it says. Not trying to be mean, but you keep making provably false statements about what the Bible says. This is what the Bible says about "self ownership."

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

That said, anarco communism doesn't preclude self-ownership. Many of the Native American tribes owned themselves. But they collectively owned the land. On the flipside in many "capitalist" countries into the 19th century the slave class didn't even own themselves. Your argument is simply incoherent.

That gets to your fallacy #2. The excuse that westerners could "own" land that was collectively owned by tribes under some "first rule of use" principle denies the self determination of societies that preferred collective ownership. But it's a double lie because when the Europeans encountered a society like the Aztecs that had property ownership, they took it. It was "right by might."

And #3 is not unique to capitalism. In fact 1, 2 and 3 are not unique to capitalism. But let's go with free exchange. Trade still existed among all the Native American tribes even though most of them collectively owned the land. They treated the land the way we treat the oceans today. In fact most right leaning libertarians were against the "law of the sea treaty" (L.O.S.T.) which would have turned the collective resource of the oceans into private property.

Does the Bible deny the rule of first use? No, God commanded Adam and Eve to "subdue the earth" which is the principle of homesteading -- go out, find something that is not subdued (not being used) and subdue it (put it to use).

That in no way implies that Adam and Eve were required to build a fence to keep their own children out. (After all, all the people in the world would have been their children). And Abraham, the first patriarch, lived mostly a nomatic life. Your understanding of the Bible is pretty weak.

Does the Bible deny free exchange? No. "If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed." (John 8:36) We are free to engage in any kind of exchange we like. "Yeah, well what about prostitution??" Prostitution is not an exchange of something that the prostitute owns outright, because they are made in the image of God. Therefore, an act of desecrating the image of God is not free-exchange-- if we're going to analyze it in commercial terms, it is actually a kind of theft of what is sacred to God.

The Native Americans were free. The early Christian church was free. The idea that you have to build a homestead and claim a parcel of land as your own to be free is stupid. And it's really stupid when you consider the fact that you don't actually own land in a "capitalist" country like the United States. Try not paying your property tax and see what happens. You're basically renting the land.

There is some overlap. But "some overlap" is not a sufficient condition to say "Hey, this is how a church was run in the first century... therefore, Christianity=communism." It's blatantly illogical.

What is "blatantly illogical" is your dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said "Christianity = communism." In fact I pointed out to you that there were people like Lydia the seller of purple and Paul who were engaging in commerce.

*shrug -- it also can't exist without a central bank. Modern capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism proper (points 1-3 above), it's just cronyism, nepotism and corporatism. State power masquerading as "private venture".

Your "points 1, 2 and 3" are NOT the definition of capitalism. And point 1 goes against Christianity. You are not your own. You were bought with a price.

This is a gross over-simplification. The difference between capitalism proper -- that is, the theory of human economics developed by the early classical liberal economists -- and modern "capitalism" is that the former is based on natural investment with risk, whereas the latter is based on risk-free or near-risk-free growth. Everyone who has managed to save $1,000 wants to rest on their laurels and be showered with cash income for the rest of their natural life in reward for their great achievement. It's a fantasy ride called "Wall Street" and, behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain is the Federal Reserve. It's amazing how printing infinity cash can permit you to create any illusion you want to create...

Your understanding of capitalism is about as weak as your understanding of the Bible.

This is what I like to call "hand-waving theology" -- you're not even making an attempt at being historically or theologically accurate. There are almost as many errors in the quoted text as there are words -- and, no, I'm not going to write an encyclopedia here unpacking all your errors.

That is a straight up lie from you.

I'm going to assume from your appeal to the Holy Spirit that you are a believer... this is spoken charitably so please take it that way

I will take you on your word that you are a believer. If you are, please refrain from lies to defend your point. I never said Christianity = communism. And the Bible does not teach "self ownership" for the Christian. If you want to make theological points, then you should quote from scripture to defend every point. You haven't come close to doing that.

 

[ClaytonB]

It's late here and perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot, so I will restrict my reply just to a small portion of your post...

I am not sure if you know enough of the Bible to try to talk about what it says. Not trying to be mean, but you keep making provably false statements about what the Bible says. This is what the Bible says about "self ownership."

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Yes, I know 1 Corinthians 6 and related passages -- we are indeed slaves purchased (redeemed) from bondage, as the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt (by a sacrifice symbolized by the Passover Lamb).

But that's not really the same topic. Self-ownership, like the other points I mentioned, is a question of man relating to man, not man relating to God. We do not own ourselves absolutely, as in, being uncreated. That is the view of atheistic leftism and this is why that philosophy leads to libertinism. Rather, we are all God's offspring (Acts 17:28), and each of us has been conferred stewardship of his own body which is absolute, in respect to one another (man-to-man). This is why I said that the only truly solid foundation for self-ownership is God -- you ought not lay a hand on me because to do so is, ultimately, an offense against the Creator. It is not only me you are striking, it is his image you are striking.

That gets to your fallacy #2. The excuse that westerners could "own" land that was collectively owned by tribes under some "first rule of use" principle denies the self determination of societies that preferred collective ownership. But it's a double lie because when the Europeans encountered a society like the Aztecs that had property ownership, they took it. It was "right by might."

Correct! The land that was stolen from the Native Americans was... stolen. Full-stop. The history of the European colonization of the Americas is a textbook illustration of "right by might." And this goes for most of the rest of European/British (and now, American) colonization everywhere around the globe. If these are not the kingdom with iron teeth that devours and tramples everything in its path, prophesied by Daniel, I cannot imagine what would be...

The principle of homesteading (rule of first use) is not some kind of "historical zeitgeist" like "manifest destiny" -- it is a moral principle that should be applied to specific legal disputes between individuals. European civilization had some semblance of private property prior to the colonization of the Americas but it was also frequently and widely trampled by kings, dukes, lords, mayors, merchants and anybody else who could manage to beg a favor from the crown -- invariably at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. So, no, Europe was not the embodiment of a culture with a strong commitment to private property and this is one of many reasons that the emerging "whites are the savior of humanity"-zeitgeist (the latest incarnation of eurocentric race-superiority) is utterly false. Everything good that Europeans and the British try to take credit for didn't come from white culture, it came from the Gospel.

And #3 is not unique to capitalism. In fact 1, 2 and 3 are not unique to capitalism.

Also correct. But that doesn't really matter -- the point is that a logically coherent theory of private property and exchange is the only foundation on which a truly free market can emerge, meaning, a market where both small and large participants are free to enter and carve out their respective niches, whether by forming cooperatives, corporations, sole-proprietors, and so on.

The State acts as an attenuator that reduces and restricts the security of private property (allowing property to be "redistributed" from one to another on the basis of something other than consent), and hampers exchanges. In this way, the State is the great enemy of human economic freedom and prosperity, all the while painting itself as the very patron of these things. The State is the very "MegaCorp Inc." that the left fears, only, they've drunk the Kool-Aid so they are incapable of seeing through the propaganda to the truth.

Everything the State does is done for private profit -- and it doesn't matter how you organize it... monarchy, oligarchy, "democracy", etc. you will always get the same result. That is because the whole purpose of a State is to produce a condition where plunder and pillaging has been regularized and annuitized. Instead of sporadic raids leaving behind burning villages, dead able-bodied men, raped women and captured or orphaned children, the State collects taxes. This is the real "social contract" -- pay us a certain amount (that we tell you) each year, and in exchange, we will (probably) not rape and plunder you. This is why the War on Terror exists. Think about it. It is the logical extension of centuries -- millenia, really -- of terrorism by the permanent State. All the lofty "capitalism" versus "socialism" debates are just a distraction from the underlying truth and this is one of the reasons that the State turns these kinds of debates into a giant bread and circus show called "the ELECTION"... it keeps the masses feeling like something might change one day, and that keeps them busy working and paying taxes (including the worst tax of all, inflation).

But let's go with free exchange. Trade still existed among all the Native American tribes even though most of them collectively owned the land. They treated the land the way we treat the oceans today. In fact most right leaning libertarians were against the "law of the sea treaty" (L.O.S.T.) which would have turned the collective resource of the oceans into private property.

I'm not one of these R-swamp fundamentalists who is out preaching the One True Gospel of Republican Party Capitalism. So, I don't really disagree with any of the exceptions you're raising. That's not my goal or point. Let me try to make the point as succinctly as possible. Look at this image:

This is India, a nominally "socialist" country. There are countless similar examples we could point to. I just bought a shop-vac today from Home Depot. Guess how many brands were on the shelf? Exactly ONE brand. We all know what freedom of exchange really means in how it manifests -- it is like the rich abundance of a fertile garden that is not over-sprayed or constantly disturbed by uprootings and replantings. The free market looks free, like a jungle, overflowing with unlimited abundance not only of quantity but also varieties and qualities. The hampered market looks like Home Depot in the "capitalist/free market" country I live in. So, it's worth reflecting how the world got so upside-down that the very things we point to as "freedom" are the very example of restriction and control, meanwhile, the very things that are tsk-tsked as being examples of "the dangers of a socialist economy" are actually examples of more-or-less free and unhampered trade.

I don't know what the law of the seas "oughtta be". I can't tell every culture in every time and place how they "oughtta" organize their public spaces. But there are some common moral principles which have been the foundation of all human trade since the dawn of time, even though the social constructs and rulers have lived in denial of these basic principles for millennia! It is an absolute myth that the Native Americans "had no concept of private property or trade", they traded with each other all the time! Private property and exchange are cultural universals; they are present in every culture. And they are only nullified to the extent that the power of the centralized State becomes aggrandized by the power-worshipers...

 

[jmdrake]

It's late here and perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot, so I will restrict my reply just to a small portion of your post...

Agreed. I will not deal with your "wall of text." This is really simple. There is such a thing as anarco communism, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not, and it doesn't require a state whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not. Capitalism requires capital whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not. Capitalism is not just having a free market. You can have a free market without capitalism. You don't have to have a central bank to have capitalism, but you do have to have usury (interest on money) to have capitalism. You can have loans with interest using cryptocurrency for example. People can decide to voluntarily hold their possessions in common or they can decide that each person will own everything and exchange them on a market. "Self-ownership" has nothing to do with the discussion. In capitalist systems some people can be slaves which means they have no self-ownership. In communist systems people can still own themselves but not own anything else. These are merely words to describe economic systems. Nothing more.