|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 15, 2014 14:38:25 GMT -5
I was raised as a 2x2, with no exposure to other denominations until I was out of high school. But in the 2x2s there is a really ambiguous situation. They are usually advised, and for the most part behave, and don't participate in politics and sometimes don't even vote. On the other hand, they can sit around and have lengthy discussions that are nothing short of racial, ethnic, class, religious, and any other kind of discrimination to be found. I was shocked into a consciousness of that in the first grade when I heard a professing man remark that a certain ethnic group of people "used to know that they were dogs, but now they want everything that everyone else has." I played with kids of that ethnic group. It was thanks to my parents that I had such intimate exposure to that ethnic group, and thankful that my Dad served on the city council. But in our house there was never once any mention of voting on "Christian" values. Our religion was strictly limited to our own lifestyle and politics was an entirely separate matter. I should tell you that for quite a number of years before I stopped going to meetings I stopped referring to myself as a Christian because I didn't want people to assume I was any kind of typical Christian. A literal quote from a senior worker, which I heard first hand from the convention platform. "Friends, I hope we're referring to ourselves to others as Christians". So, I'm curious. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian now? Or are you a Christian now? I kinda thought "humanist" might be your label of choice. (I should Google Christian humanist and see what comes up.) I certainly don't call myself a Christian. Although if I were inclined to believe in a predictable kind of afterlife, I might become a Christian. But if I were going to believe in Jesus as the Jewish messiah, I would never call myself a Christian because I really am not convinced that Jesus (the person) ever considered himself a "Christ" in the Christian sense. As for the authenticity of modern Christianity, it is largely a bastardization of Western Pagan religion, which I regard as a deceptive political movement. And as for Jesus believers/Messianics/Jews, they're just an evolved version of ancient Middle East paganism, which is basically racist at its core. For label purposes, I just say I am an agnostic -- I just don't believe anything I am told about god(s) or the afterlife because there is a point at which every related teaching was invented by human beings. I'm intelligent enough to invent such things for myself, but I don't consider myself capable of telling anyone else that my imaginings/conclusions/haluzcinations/revelations are absolute truths. So I accept that my best efforts are to live my life at peace with the rest of creation and live forever through what positive influence I can have on others. My reward is to feel good about myself for making the lives of those I can touch more enjoyable. But I do say that I am a cultural Christian. I was raised in a Christian culture, and I was nurtured on humanism through a Christian view of the world. We don't have a choice about what culture we are raised in, but we do have a choice to pursue wisdom independently from our culture. If this makes any sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2014 15:05:46 GMT -5
I might be wrong about Marcus Borg, but I'm concerned that he might have left-wing views that are counter-productive to social justice. Governments can and should take care of the disadvantaged in society, but to do that requires money. Money can be extracted from an economy for social justice but all too often left-wing governments kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There's a balance to be had and governments often get it wrong. They need to provide the conditions for business to prosper, and skim some of the wealth (but not too much) and spend it wisely. Never mind welfare payments, the USA is slipping on infrastructure spending, on education and on public health. The middle class is disappearing! And the rich are getting richer. I don't think Borg gets down to the level of indicating what the social policies should be. I think the argument is at the level of - should Christians get involved on social justice issues. Yes, they should. That's really about all. My concern is that Christians shouldn't be guilt-tripped into supporting left-wing parties that have good intentions for helping the poor but end up hurting everyone. Venezuela is just one example of left-wing stupidity. In the late 1950s its real GDP per capita almost reached West Germany's. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and is resource-rich with huge potential, yet it has the world's highest misery index score.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 15, 2014 17:21:12 GMT -5
Never mind welfare payments, the USA is slipping on infrastructure spending, on education and on public health. The middle class is disappearing! And the rich are getting richer. I don't think Borg gets down to the level of indicating what the social policies should be. I think the argument is at the level of - should Christians get involved on social justice issues. Yes, they should. That's really about all. My concern is that Christians shouldn't be guilt-tripped into supporting left-wing parties that have good intentions for helping the poor but end up hurting everyone. Venezuela is just one example of left-wing stupidity. In the late 1950s its real GDP per capita almost reached West Germany's. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and is resource-rich with huge potential, yet it has the world's highest misery index score. If you look at the UN Human Development Index, inequality adjusted, many of the top countries are those which have a more enlightened outlook for the welfare of the general population. I don't want to say socialism, but some people would call it that. So we see Norway, first, and Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Canada in the top 10. So, I don't understand why you think that Venezuela proves that socialism does not work. If you have one socialist country that works, then doesn't that prove that socialism can work at least in some circumstances? The other ones are just doing it wrong. The USA, the wealthiest country in the world, is 28th on this list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDIThe problem with a number of emerging nations, and I haven't looked closely at Venezuela, is that a ruling class gets in based on lies to the people, and then strip the country of its wealth to line their own pockets. Well, it's happened in Ireland and Iceland to name two examples. And in different ways to countries like Zimbabwe and the Congo. Countries like Cuba were well meaning in their socialist/ Communist impulses but no country is going to make it in the face of a US embargo. That might be what happened in Venezuela also. The fundamental axis on which the political world turns is rich versus poor, with the rich wanting to protect what they have, maybe add a few more billions if they can, and the poor wanting to improve their lot. That is how the world turns.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2014 18:20:26 GMT -5
My concern is that Christians shouldn't be guilt-tripped into supporting left-wing parties that have good intentions for helping the poor but end up hurting everyone. Venezuela is just one example of left-wing stupidity. In the late 1950s its real GDP per capita almost reached West Germany's. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and is resource-rich with huge potential, yet it has the world's highest misery index score. If you look at the UN Human Development Index, inequality adjusted, many of the top countries are those which have a more enlightened outlook for the welfare of the general population. I don't want to say socialism, but some people would call it that. So we see Norway, first, and Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Canada in the top 10. So, I don't understand why you think that Venezuela proves that socialism does not work. If you have one socialist country that works, then doesn't that prove that socialism can work at least in some circumstances? The other ones are just doing it wrong. The USA, the wealthiest country in the world, is 28th on this list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDIThe problem with a number of emerging nations, and I haven't looked closely at Venezuela, is that a ruling class gets in based on lies to the people, and then strip the country of its wealth to line their own pockets. Well, it's happened in Ireland and Iceland to name two examples. And in different ways to countries like Zimbabwe and the Congo. Countries like Cuba were well meaning in their socialist/ Communist impulses but no country is going to make it in the face of a US embargo. That might be what happened in Venezuela also. The fundamental axis on which the political world turns is rich versus poor, with the rich wanting to protect what they have, maybe add a few more billions if they can, and the poor wanting to improve their lot. That is how the world turns. Sorry, you can't blame a US embargo for Venezuela's problems. The US is their most important trading partner I'm with you on the value of taking care of the poor, but it needs to be done in a measured and intelligent way. I don't recall ever saying that socialism was bad, just that it needs to be balanced with business-friendly policies so that the goose doesn't stop laying golden eggs. I recommend you take a look at Venezuela's economic policy. Actually, I'd like every student on the planet to study it as a text-book example of economic stupidity. I'm sure the Venezuelan government tried hard to help the poor, but their efforts resulted in economic disaster. The best policy for the poor is business-friendly, combined with a safety net that is a hand up more than a hand out. Too many left-wingers are focused on dividing up the cake rather than increasing its size.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 15, 2014 19:42:35 GMT -5
Never mind welfare payments, the USA is slipping on infrastructure spending, on education and on public health. The middle class is disappearing! And the rich are getting richer. I don't think Borg gets down to the level of indicating what the social policies should be. I think the argument is at the level of - should Christians get involved on social justice issues. Yes, they should. That's really about all. My concern is that Christians shouldn't be guilt-tripped into supporting left-wing parties that have good intentions for helping the poor but end up hurting everyone. Venezuela is just one example of left-wing stupidity. In the late 1950s its real GDP per capita almost reached West Germany's. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and is resource-rich with huge potential, yet it has the world's highest misery index score. I didn't know you were an oil titan.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2014 20:26:27 GMT -5
My concern is that Christians shouldn't be guilt-tripped into supporting left-wing parties that have good intentions for helping the poor but end up hurting everyone. Venezuela is just one example of left-wing stupidity. In the late 1950s its real GDP per capita almost reached West Germany's. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and is resource-rich with huge potential, yet it has the world's highest misery index score. I didn't know you were an oil titan. Am I?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 15, 2014 21:15:58 GMT -5
I didn't know you were an oil titan. Am I? You vote for them. What's the payback?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2014 22:08:15 GMT -5
You vote for them. What's the payback? No. I vote for politicians who encourage businesses to create wealth, part of which is used to help those with special needs. I'm center right. Note the word center.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 15, 2014 22:21:52 GMT -5
If you look at the UN Human Development Index, inequality adjusted, many of the top countries are those which have a more enlightened outlook for the welfare of the general population. I don't want to say socialism, but some people would call it that. So we see Norway, first, and Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Canada in the top 10. So, I don't understand why you think that Venezuela proves that socialism does not work. If you have one socialist country that works, then doesn't that prove that socialism can work at least in some circumstances? The other ones are just doing it wrong. The USA, the wealthiest country in the world, is 28th on this list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDIThe problem with a number of emerging nations, and I haven't looked closely at Venezuela, is that a ruling class gets in based on lies to the people, and then strip the country of its wealth to line their own pockets. Well, it's happened in Ireland and Iceland to name two examples. And in different ways to countries like Zimbabwe and the Congo. Countries like Cuba were well meaning in their socialist/ Communist impulses but no country is going to make it in the face of a US embargo. That might be what happened in Venezuela also. The fundamental axis on which the political world turns is rich versus poor, with the rich wanting to protect what they have, maybe add a few more billions if they can, and the poor wanting to improve their lot. That is how the world turns. Sorry, you can't blame a US embargo for Venezuela's problems. The US is their most important trading partner I'm with you on the value of taking care of the poor, but it needs to be done in a measured and intelligent way. I don't recall ever saying that socialism was bad, just that it needs to be balanced with business-friendly policies so that the goose doesn't stop laying golden eggs. I recommend you take a look at Venezuela's economic policy. Actually, I'd like every student on the planet to study it as a text-book example of economic stupidity. I'm sure the Venezuelan government tried hard to help the poor, but their efforts resulted in economic disaster. The best policy for the poor is business-friendly, combined with a safety net that is a hand up more than a hand out. Too many left-wingers are focused on dividing up the cake rather than increasing its size. Well, I see no trade in defending your phantom "left-wingers". I'm not sure what Venezuela is supposed to be an example of; you haven't convinced me that it's worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 15, 2014 22:51:46 GMT -5
You vote for them. What's the payback? No. I vote for politicians who encourage businesses to create wealth, part of which is used to help those with special needs. I'm center right. Note the word center. Yeah. Note the expression "center right".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 15, 2014 23:23:27 GMT -5
Sorry, you can't blame a US embargo for Venezuela's problems. The US is their most important trading partner I'm with you on the value of taking care of the poor, but it needs to be done in a measured and intelligent way. I don't recall ever saying that socialism was bad, just that it needs to be balanced with business-friendly policies so that the goose doesn't stop laying golden eggs. I recommend you take a look at Venezuela's economic policy. Actually, I'd like every student on the planet to study it as a text-book example of economic stupidity. I'm sure the Venezuelan government tried hard to help the poor, but their efforts resulted in economic disaster. The best policy for the poor is business-friendly, combined with a safety net that is a hand up more than a hand out. Too many left-wingers are focused on dividing up the cake rather than increasing its size. Well, I see no trade in defending your phantom "left-wingers". I'm not sure what Venezuela is supposed to be an example of; you haven't convinced me that it's worth a look. Venezuela is an example of left-wing politicians (with the best of intentions for helping the poor) through ignorance destroying an economy that had huge potential. Humanity continues to make the same mistakes because ideology gets in the way of learning from the past. I suspect you would rather stick with your current beliefs around economics, and its really not my job to convince you of anything.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 16, 2014 1:00:15 GMT -5
A church can be many things. Place of refuge. Place of worship. A haven. Place of prayer. or Place of control, torment, torture. Depends who is ruling
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 16, 2014 8:43:28 GMT -5
Well, I see no trade in defending your phantom "left-wingers". I'm not sure what Venezuela is supposed to be an example of; you haven't convinced me that it's worth a look. Venezuela is an example of left-wing politicians (with the best of intentions for helping the poor) through ignorance destroying an economy that had huge potential. Humanity continues to make the same mistakes because ideology gets in the way of learning from the past. I suspect you would rather stick with your current beliefs around economics, and its really not my job to convince you of anything. But why do you say they are "left-wing"? Does that have anything to do with what happened? Because perhaps they're just bad managers, period. I find the thinking simplistic, which doesn't mean your simplistic, but you're tapping in to a line of thought that is overly simplistic, drawn along one ideology (right wing) versus another ideology (left wing). My point is that there are governments with a broader, more humane outlook for the entire population. They are not socialistic, as the term is defined, but they do more for the people than what you find in a country like the USA or even Canada. And these countries, like Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, are the best working countries in the world, as far as quality of life is concerned for the average citizen and also the poorest of citizens. So why don't we take some lessons from them, and try to be more like them? And the lesson, I think, is that the State should take care of the health and education of its citizenry, especially in order to be competitive as a nation in the global economy. Incidentally, my beliefs are subject to constant revision. All indications to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 16, 2014 13:51:17 GMT -5
Venezuela is an example of left-wing politicians (with the best of intentions for helping the poor) through ignorance destroying an economy that had huge potential. Humanity continues to make the same mistakes because ideology gets in the way of learning from the past. I suspect you would rather stick with your current beliefs around economics, and its really not my job to convince you of anything. But why do you say they are "left-wing"? Does that have anything to do with what happened? Because perhaps they're just bad managers, period. I find the thinking simplistic, which doesn't mean your simplistic, but you're tapping in to a line of thought that is overly simplistic, drawn along one ideology (right wing) versus another ideology (left wing). My point is that there are governments with a broader, more humane outlook for the entire population. They are not socialistic, as the term is defined, but they do more for the people than what you find in a country like the USA or even Canada. And these countries, like Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, are the best working countries in the world, as far as quality of life is concerned for the average citizen and also the poorest of citizens. So why don't we take some lessons from them, and try to be more like them? And the lesson, I think, is that the State should take care of the health and education of its citizenry, especially in order to be competitive as a nation in the global economy. Incidentally, my beliefs are subject to constant revision. All indications to the contrary notwithstanding. If you find "left" and "right" wing offensive, lets stick with "socialist". I am a business-friendly moderate socialist. Create the conditions for business to thrive and then skim some of the created wealth to provide for health, education etc. You want the goose that lays the golden eggs to thrive. Businesses in a competitive environment are good at creating wealth - governments are not good at creating wealth. Extreme socialists might have the best interests of the poor in mind, but they implement policies that hinder productivity and growth which ultimately works against the poor. An example: what would happen if you doubled the minimum wage? You would effectively kick the bottom rung out of the ladder and a lot of poor people would lose their jobs because they lack the skills to reach the next rung. On the other hand, if you could help low income earners to improve their marketable skills, then their income would increase naturally.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 16, 2014 15:11:32 GMT -5
Venezuela is an example of left-wing politicians (with the best of intentions for helping the poor) through ignorance destroying an economy that had huge potential. Humanity continues to make the same mistakes because ideology gets in the way of learning from the past. I suspect you would rather stick with your current beliefs around economics, and its really not my job to convince you of anything. But why do you say they are "left-wing"? Does that have anything to do with what happened? Because perhaps they're just bad managers, period. I find the thinking simplistic, which doesn't mean your simplistic, but you're tapping in to a line of thought that is overly simplistic, drawn along one ideology (right wing) versus another ideology (left wing). My point is that there are governments with a broader, more humane outlook for the entire population. They are not socialistic, as the term is defined, but they do more for the people than what you find in a country like the USA or even Canada. And these countries, like Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, are the best working countries in the world, as far as quality of life is concerned for the average citizen and also the poorest of citizens. So why don't we take some lessons from them, and try to be more like them? And the lesson, I think, is that the State should take care of the health and education of its citizenry, especially in order to be competitive as a nation in the global economy. Incidentally, my beliefs are subject to constant revision. All indications to the contrary notwithstanding. When you're in Maine, even New Hampshire is left leaning.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 16, 2014 15:31:13 GMT -5
The idiots should never have bombed Iraq. Now they have added who knows how many millions of fanatics that hate them. All this hatred has a history. Germans treated Dutch despicably last century, but it hasn't resulted in thousands of fanatics wanting to cut off innocent journalist's heads. Sorry, I don't buy into your theory that those who hate our Western civilization are justified. The Dutch are smart enough to know the difference between Germans and Nazis. Others can't tell the difference. Just like they also can't tell the difference between Muslims and terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 16, 2014 16:14:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 16, 2014 16:20:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 16, 2014 16:34:55 GMT -5
Many societies in recorded history have been wiped out because they didn't defend themselves. Typically the victors wrote history so we mostly know only their side of the story. Were the Yazidi people unreasonable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 16:56:04 GMT -5
how quickly forget the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights legislation of th 60's....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 16, 2014 17:39:33 GMT -5
how quickly forget the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights legislation of th 60's.... Racists always find ways around legislation. We still have lots of slavery pre-Civil War style slavery in this country, and the ACLU is still being scoffed at. Legislation is not the complete answer, but what else do we have?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 16, 2014 17:55:27 GMT -5
But why do you say they are "left-wing"? Does that have anything to do with what happened? Because perhaps they're just bad managers, period. I find the thinking simplistic, which doesn't mean your simplistic, but you're tapping in to a line of thought that is overly simplistic, drawn along one ideology (right wing) versus another ideology (left wing). My point is that there are governments with a broader, more humane outlook for the entire population. They are not socialistic, as the term is defined, but they do more for the people than what you find in a country like the USA or even Canada. And these countries, like Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, are the best working countries in the world, as far as quality of life is concerned for the average citizen and also the poorest of citizens. So why don't we take some lessons from them, and try to be more like them? And the lesson, I think, is that the State should take care of the health and education of its citizenry, especially in order to be competitive as a nation in the global economy. Incidentally, my beliefs are subject to constant revision. All indications to the contrary notwithstanding. If you find "left" and "right" wing offensive, lets stick with "socialist". I am a business-friendly moderate socialist. Create the conditions for business to thrive and then skim some of the created wealth to provide for health, education etc. You want the goose that lays the golden eggs to thrive. Businesses in a competitive environment are good at creating wealth - governments are not good at creating wealth. Extreme socialists might have the best interests of the poor in mind, but they implement policies that hinder productivity and growth which ultimately works against the poor. An example: what would happen if you doubled the minimum wage? You would effectively kick the bottom rung out of the ladder and a lot of poor people would lose their jobs because they lack the skills to reach the next rung. On the other hand, if you could help low income earners to improve their marketable skills, then their income would increase naturally. Sure, but if you want the population to have marketable skills you have to invest in education, and make it financially accessible to everyone in the population. Is that extreme socialism, in your opinion? The USA has fallen behind European countries, in part, because the occupational skills level of the population is much lower. I don't believe in doubling the minimum wage, but I believe in having a minimum wage. The reason is that if wages are left to the free market, the lowest wages will go down to a penny, assuming there's no welfare system in place. You need to have a minimum wage level so that commodity menial or manual labour still amounts to a living wage. By the way, who are these extreme left wingers who want to double the minimum wage? Do they exist? A purely socialist system, from the little I've read, pays everyone the same, no matter what. I agree that that doesn't work. You do need incentive in the system, and for the most part, I think we're on the same page. You also can't confer benefits that you can't afford. Agree with you there. Where I do often disagree with capitalists is that they think everything should be owned, built and sold by private interests. I believe in State ownership of things by the people for the people: park land, government buildings, railroads, highway, our water and our air. No one is selling us "air" yet, but private interests are grabbing the water, so the air is probably next. Given that, I believe work should be contracted out to private enterprise to the greatest extent possible. It doesn't always make sense to do this, but an example is that all road construction in Canada is performed by private companies under sealed govt tender bids. We've had corruption in Quebec, but basically that system works well. We have one highway in Ontario that the Conservative govt allowed private interests to build and own, and they are robbing people blind with tolls. Bad, bad mistake. Here's one that throws some of my socialist acquaintance, and that is my opinion in favour of zero corporate taxes, but I'll leave that one there for now.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 16, 2014 18:05:53 GMT -5
Many societies in recorded history have been wiped out because they didn't defend themselves. Typically the victors wrote history so we mostly know only their side of the story. Were the Yazidi people unreasonable? But as Christians we occupy a unique place in this world, or try to. We're in the world, not of the world. The societies of the world are going to make their decisions in terms of self-interest; always have and always will. So, those decisions are made according to a kind of political logic. I don't argue with those positions; it's a matter of political science, if you will, although it's not quite that trivial, but foreign policy has its dictates, lets say. What do we as Christians do? We're supposed to be different and turn the other cheek. The answers for us as individuals aren't always easy, but we have to think about the long view, say, a few thousand years out. We're not supposed to just follow the crowd; but be led by principle.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 16, 2014 18:39:59 GMT -5
But as Christians we occupy a unique place in this world, or try to. We're in the world, not of the world. The societies of the world are going to make their decisions in terms of self-interest; always have and always will. So, those decisions are made according to a kind of political logic. I don't argue with those positions; it's a matter of political science, if you will, although it's not quite that trivial, but foreign policy has its dictates, lets say. What do we as Christians do? We're supposed to be different and turn the other cheek. The answers for us as individuals aren't always easy, but we have to think about the long view, say, a few thousand years out. We're not supposed to just follow the crowd; but be led by principle. Something of interest is that John the Baptist didn't tell the occupation soldiers, or even the tax collectors, to find a new career...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 18:45:48 GMT -5
If you find "left" and "right" wing offensive, lets stick with "socialist". I am a business-friendly moderate socialist. Create the conditions for business to thrive and then skim some of the created wealth to provide for health, education etc. You want the goose that lays the golden eggs to thrive. Businesses in a competitive environment are good at creating wealth - governments are not good at creating wealth. Extreme socialists might have the best interests of the poor in mind, but they implement policies that hinder productivity and growth which ultimately works against the poor. An example: what would happen if you doubled the minimum wage? You would effectively kick the bottom rung out of the ladder and a lot of poor people would lose their jobs because they lack the skills to reach the next rung. On the other hand, if you could help low income earners to improve their marketable skills, then their income would increase naturally. Sure, but if you want the population to have marketable skills you have to invest in education, and make it financially accessible to everyone in the population. Is that extreme socialism, in your opinion? The USA has fallen behind European countries, in part, because the occupational skills level of the population is much lower. I don't believe in doubling the minimum wage, but I believe in having a minimum wage. The reason is that if wages are left to the free market, the lowest wages will go down to a penny, assuming there's no welfare system in place. You need to have a minimum wage level so that commodity menial or manual labour still amounts to a living wage. By the way, who are these extreme left wingers who want to double the minimum wage? Do they exist? A purely socialist system, from the little I've read, pays everyone the same, no matter what. I agree that that doesn't work. You do need incentive in the system, and for the most part, I think we're on the same page. You also can't confer benefits that you can't afford. Agree with you there. Where I do often disagree with capitalists is that they think everything should be owned, built and sold by private interests. I believe in State ownership of things by the people for the people: park land, government buildings, railroads, highway, our water and our air. No one is selling us "air" yet, but private interests are grabbing the water, so the air is probably next. Given that, I believe work should be contracted out to private enterprise to the greatest extent possible. It doesn't always make sense to do this, but an example is that all road construction in Canada is performed by private companies under sealed govt tender bids. We've had corruption in Quebec, but basically that system works well. We have one highway in Ontario that the Conservative govt allowed private interests to build and own, and they are robbing people blind with tolls. Bad, bad mistake. Here's one that throws some of my socialist acquaintance, and that is my opinion in favour of zero corporate taxes, but I'll leave that one there for now. they exist in king county washington they just doubled minimum wage to 15$ per hour... as to minimum wage thats only been around since 38' america was fine without it before that and prospered...
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 16, 2014 19:32:15 GMT -5
I don't believe in doubling the minimum wage, but I believe in having a minimum wage. The reason is that if wages are left to the free market, the lowest wages will go down to a penny, assuming there's no welfare system in place. You need to have a minimum wage level so that commodity menial or manual labour still amounts to a living wage. How do you define a "living wage"? I'd like to see McDonald's and Walmart employees get paid enough to survive reasonably without government assistance, and without having to work two and three jobs. Any less, strikes me as being unethical, given the profits companies like these enjoy. It seems to me like taxpayers are essentially padding the pockets of corporate shareholders (corporate "welfare queens"?!) in the form of financial assistance to their underpaid employees.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 16, 2014 19:34:14 GMT -5
But as Christians we occupy a unique place in this world, or try to. We're in the world, not of the world. The societies of the world are going to make their decisions in terms of self-interest; always have and always will. So, those decisions are made according to a kind of political logic. I don't argue with those positions; it's a matter of political science, if you will, although it's not quite that trivial, but foreign policy has its dictates, lets say. What do we as Christians do? We're supposed to be different and turn the other cheek. The answers for us as individuals aren't always easy, but we have to think about the long view, say, a few thousand years out. We're not supposed to just follow the crowd; but be led by principle. Something of interest is that John the Baptist didn't tell the occupation soldiers, or even the tax collectors, to find a new career... He also wasn't stupid, and they weren't Christians. At least they got a start.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 16, 2014 19:38:43 GMT -5
Sure, but if you want the population to have marketable skills you have to invest in education, and make it financially accessible to everyone in the population. Is that extreme socialism, in your opinion? The USA has fallen behind European countries, in part, because the occupational skills level of the population is much lower. I don't believe in doubling the minimum wage, but I believe in having a minimum wage. The reason is that if wages are left to the free market, the lowest wages will go down to a penny, assuming there's no welfare system in place. You need to have a minimum wage level so that commodity menial or manual labour still amounts to a living wage. By the way, who are these extreme left wingers who want to double the minimum wage? Do they exist? A purely socialist system, from the little I've read, pays everyone the same, no matter what. I agree that that doesn't work. You do need incentive in the system, and for the most part, I think we're on the same page. You also can't confer benefits that you can't afford. Agree with you there. Where I do often disagree with capitalists is that they think everything should be owned, built and sold by private interests. I believe in State ownership of things by the people for the people: park land, government buildings, railroads, highway, our water and our air. No one is selling us "air" yet, but private interests are grabbing the water, so the air is probably next. Given that, I believe work should be contracted out to private enterprise to the greatest extent possible. It doesn't always make sense to do this, but an example is that all road construction in Canada is performed by private companies under sealed govt tender bids. We've had corruption in Quebec, but basically that system works well. We have one highway in Ontario that the Conservative govt allowed private interests to build and own, and they are robbing people blind with tolls. Bad, bad mistake. Here's one that throws some of my socialist acquaintance, and that is my opinion in favour of zero corporate taxes, but I'll leave that one there for now. they exist in king county washington they just doubled minimum wage to 15$ per hour... as to minimum wage thats only been around since 38' america was fine without it before that and prospered... Are you serious? 1938, the heart of the Depression? And aside from that, back in my father's day there were many good factory jobs, jobs in agriculture and so on, that are all gone now. Automation and globalization have taken care of that.
|
|