Christianity and Libertarianism?

[Royal Hindustan]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

[Pandeeria]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Under Socialism, if you work hard and your peers approve of you, you will get promoted.

[The Liberated Territories]

In the US? All the conservatives I meet tell me they support a small sized government. Somehow.

In reality, conservatives support a moderate sized government.

They push a huge government from my perspective, little different than the left in America.

[The Liberated Territories]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Under Socialism, if you work hard and your peers approve of you, you will get promoted.

fify

[Arana]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

[Pandeeria]

Under Socialism, if you work hard and your peers approve of you, you will get promoted.

fify

Eh, I suppose.

[Pandeeria]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

Regardless, Capitalism is a more economic system and as a whole has done far more good than bad, something Socialism, even in the false forms that the USSR and China toiled with, cannot claim has done.

[Royal Hindustan]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

[Pandeeria]

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

That number is so exaggerated that it leaps into the realm of straight out lies.

A better number would be 20 Million killed, but that's stretching it a tad.

[New Werpland]

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

No modern leftist is advocating collectivization.

[Arana]

Yes, capitalism is responsible for great men like Andrew Carnegie. But, it's also responsible for the Gilded Age, a period of American history known for widespread poverty, low standards of health and safety, and a time where you could die in unsafe working conditions with no hope of compensation, dooming your family to starvation.

And by the way, Carnegie would still have flourished in a socialist state. He just would have been slightly less rich, but still pretty fucking rich.

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

The Great Leap Forward, on paper, was actually a great idea. In exchange for food, China could access the materials it needed to become an industrial power. The only issue was, China didn't have enough food, which is why before the Great Leap Forward, there were frequent famines. Ironically, the Great Leap Forward, despite the immense cost in life, ended famines in China for decades... but that's besides the point.

No, poverty was widespread in the Gilded Age. For an example, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which describes the story of a Lithuanian immigrant in Chicago.

[Ardoki]

A centre-left mixed economy is the best.

[Royal Hindustan]

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

That number is so exaggerated that it leaps into the realm of straight out lies.

A better number would be 20 Million killed, but that's stretching it a tad.

Yes, 20 million died in direct terms, but the other 40 million died of repercussions like diseases caused from malnutrition, weakening of body and heat exposure due to work under the sun.

[Arana]

That number is so exaggerated that it leaps into the realm of straight out lies.

A better number would be 20 Million killed, but that's stretching it a tad.

Yes, 20 million died in direct terms, but the other 40 million died of repercussions like diseases caused from malnutrition, weakening of body and heat exposure due to work under the sun.

All deaths were due to the famine it inadvertently caused, not heat exposure or overworking.

[The Merchant Republics]

As a Christian Anarchist (of the ill-begotten an-cap variety), not just Libertarian; my faith definitely has influenced my political views and are I would say mostly in sync with one another.

That said, I find over time, Christian ethics makes me move sort of more left-wing on the anarchist scale, Christian ethics are not explicitly anti-property or anti-capitalist, but in Christ's own words for a rich man to get to heaven is like a camel trying to go through the head of a needle; and much of capitalism is a worship of greed, money and things. I'm not immune, and in some ways I like it, and more importantly, I see no reason to stop anyone from liking those things. Yet, I think the superior society is in some ways a less consumerist, more communal one; I'd just rather we reach that point by choice rather than force.

In terms of the anti-government side of anarchism, I feel that Christ is also very clear, the overtones of humble submission to authority is not about consenting to government and least of all leading government, but instead a measure equal to his position of humility in the face of all evil. His preeminent words, "render unto Caesar" have been, misunderstood, but in context it couldn't be more clear, the question is one the Pharisees posed to him to lead him to admit his rebellion so they would have cause against him. So they asked, are we to pay taxes, and his reply "render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God" was not a tacit approval of Roman rule, but explicitly calling out the Pharisees for their cooperation with Rome. If you would use Caesar's image on your coins then return the coins to him.

Paul's invocation to submit to authorities, was wise jurisprudence in the tumultuous times of the 1st century, but I have my doubts he meant it as a end-all approval of government, certainly not as the like we have today.

[Royal Hindustan]

While I agree with the low standards of health and safety at workplaces, I do not agree with the widespread poverty. During the Gilded Age, yes there was great income equality, but that does not necessarily mean people were poor. During the Gilded Age, the average income for the American increased, just the fact that it did not increase as drastically compared to rich men. While the Gilded Age was definitely not ideal, it wasn't as bad as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which under the banner of communism, killed 60 million people.

The Great Leap Forward, on paper, was actually a great idea. In exchange for food, China could access the materials it needed to become an industrial power. The only issue was, China didn't have enough food, which is why before the Great Leap Forward, there were frequent famines. Ironically, the Great Leap Forward, despite the immense cost in life, ended famines in China for decades... but that's besides the point.

No, poverty was widespread in the Gilded Age. For an example, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which describes the story of a Lithuanian immigrant in Chicago.

I haven't read the book, but since you said Lithuanian immigrant, it is most likely he was already poor. Most immigrants to America during the Gilded Age came from poverty, which is why they came to America. Yes, perhaps they suffered in the first generations, but their children turned out to be some of the most successful people in American history.

[Kincoboh]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Capitalism works on the backs of slave labour, destruction of the environment, and imperialism. It creates huge social division and atomizes people. I don't know if socialism is the best antidote, but capitalism is a failure. Maybe instead of a new economic system we need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the world.

[Pandeeria]

That number is so exaggerated that it leaps into the realm of straight out lies.

A better number would be 20 Million killed, but that's stretching it a tad.

Yes, 20 million died in direct terms, but the other 40 million died of repercussions like diseases caused from malnutrition, weakening of body and heat exposure due to work under the sun.

If you're taking into account things such as that, you could maybe argue a total of thirty million died, but that's about it.

[Royal Hindustan]

Yes, 20 million died in direct terms, but the other 40 million died of repercussions like diseases caused from malnutrition, weakening of body and heat exposure due to work under the sun.

All deaths were due to the famine it inadvertently caused, not heat exposure or overworking.

Are you sure working for 12 hours on farms in the sun will not give you heat exposure and make you overworked.

[Arana]

The Great Leap Forward, on paper, was actually a great idea. In exchange for food, China could access the materials it needed to become an industrial power. The only issue was, China didn't have enough food, which is why before the Great Leap Forward, there were frequent famines. Ironically, the Great Leap Forward, despite the immense cost in life, ended famines in China for decades... but that's besides the point.

No, poverty was widespread in the Gilded Age. For an example, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which describes the story of a Lithuanian immigrant in Chicago.

I haven't read the book, but since you said Lithuanian immigrant, it is most likely he was already poor. Most immigrants to America during the Gilded Age came from poverty, which is why they came to America. Yes, perhaps they suffered in the first generations, but their children turned out to be some of the most successful people in American history.

Actually, many immigrants ended up actually being worse off in America than they were in the nations they came from. In Lithuania, the character's family was rather wealthy. In America, well... one of his children fell asleep at work and was eaten by rats. Another drowned in mud. And so on.

And of course, that's not just immigrants. Look at the pictures of slums in major cities like New York. No human being should live in those conditions, yet they were rampant in the Gilded Age.

[Royal Hindustan]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Capitalism works on the backs of slave labour, destruction of the environment, and imperialism. It creates huge social division and atomizes people. I don't know if socialism is the best antidote, but capitalism is a failure. Maybe instead of a new economic system we need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the world.

I would request you please elaborate on your first sentence.

[Arana]

All deaths were due to the famine it inadvertently caused, not heat exposure or overworking.

Are you sure working for 12 hours on farms in the sun will not give you heat exposure and make you overworked.

The Great Leap Forward wasn't responsible of them overworking themselves. If anything, it was responsible for the Great Chinese Famine, which caused 20 million people to starve.

[Royal Hindustan]

I haven't read the book, but since you said Lithuanian immigrant, it is most likely he was already poor. Most immigrants to America during the Gilded Age came from poverty, which is why they came to America. Yes, perhaps they suffered in the first generations, but their children turned out to be some of the most successful people in American history.

Actually, many immigrants ended up actually being worse off in America than they were in the nations they came from. In Lithuania, the character's family was rather wealthy. In America, well... one of his children fell asleep at work and was eaten by rats. Another drowned in mud. And so on.

And of course, that's not just immigrants. Look at the pictures of slums in major cities like New York. No human being should live in those conditions, yet they were rampant in the Gilded Age.

Again, first generation might have lived in bad conditions, but with the money they were able to earn, the second generation was able to make by at least, if not being well off. The reason there were slums is because of America being unprepared for such an influx of immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants lacking money to buy a house.

[Arana]

Actually, many immigrants ended up actually being worse off in America than they were in the nations they came from. In Lithuania, the character's family was rather wealthy. In America, well... one of his children fell asleep at work and was eaten by rats. Another drowned in mud. And so on.

And of course, that's not just immigrants. Look at the pictures of slums in major cities like New York. No human being should live in those conditions, yet they were rampant in the Gilded Age.

Again, first generation might have lived in bad conditions, but with the money they were able to earn, the second generation was able to make by at least, if not being well off. The reason there were slums is because of America being unprepared for such an influx of immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants lacking money to buy a house.

Actually, the second generation was poor too. And the third. My great grandfather was an immigrant. His kids were poor. Their kids were poor for much of their life.

And no, they couldn't afford to buy houses. Just go read about the Gilded Age somewhere, learn the truth.

[New Werpland]

Again your using Libertarianism, a concept not in existence when Christianity was kicked of. Saint Augustine defines evil as the absence of good, so a person who chooses to not do any good is evil.

In Libertarianism everything is up to the individual, society does not have the right to judge people's choices as right and wrong.

Well we can tell people that what there doing might be wrong but we shouldn't judge or dictate moral behavior.
"Judge not lest you be judged"

So you would allow murder, because you aren't the one being murdered? That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Self defense and the defense of others.

1. Jesus was talking about being humble when he said "Judge not lest you be judged" , I find it extremely hard to believe that he was being a moral relativist. Want proof I found these sources in a quick google search
http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-to-judge-others-10-things-to-know-and

2. Christians will and have used coercion many times as a means to achieve "good" outcomes.