THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY

[Picard]

Capitalists usually don't require force, they buy you out, and only use force as a last means. So-called Communists and some socialists, as well as various monarchies on the other hand, have used quite a bit of violence to force their agendas through.
-Mike

There is difference between socialists and socialists-in-name-only. Canada, Australia, Scandinavian states are socialistic states, yet they have better democracy than US (which is democracy-in-name-only, as well as 90% of other world democracies, so it isn't as large of achievement as it might sound); US meanwhile sponsored owerthrow of legally-elected socialistic leaders in South America (such as Pinochet's US-sponsored coup against Salvador Allende, US injust invasion of Panama, titled "Just Cause" - you really have to admire such glorious hypocrisy), "liberated" people of Iraq of Saddam's regime (don't get me wrong, Iraqi's were happy to see him leaving, but I think that right know most of them itch for "good old days" - he might have been killing, torturing and robbing them, but US is doing same things along with quislings from Occupational Government, and all money that is being robbed from Iraq is going overseas, into pockets of US corporations, making it that much worse).

@mojo Depending on how well educated beople are. True democracy with well educated people (which is why I support free education, and why capitalists oppose it, aside from standard "I want more money") who think with their heads is best possible system. Which is why all corporate- owned newspapers are killing our brains with idiocities, and why capitalistic "more money, even throught blood of other people" is being promoted.

What you are talking about would probably happen; but that is mainly to blame on materialistic philosophy, which makes workplace with good pay and no work ideal workplace. Meaning that something has to change in minds of people before that.

As for Christianity, it is a good way, althought definetly not only good way. You may believe in God or not; but what is important is morale, that all people should help each other, and shouldn't live on another's expense (unless they are really in need - like, disabled - and that another one helps them willingly), and should always stand behind their actions and words, taking consequences no matter what these consequences might be.

And even I didn't read entire Bible, and go only occasionally to church; but what I read was enough for me to understand Christian morale. It isn't worth a sh** when one reads Bible every day and goes to Church every weekend, but then robs people, lies, etc. Opposite isn't ideal either, but is far better.

[mojo]

as an agnostic i can make either argument without too much trouble. please don't take this the wrong way, picard, but surely you realize you're not living as a christian is meant to live. insofar as the bible itself is concerned, there are very specific rules and guidelines for christian living which simply cannot be met without at the absolute least continual reading of the bible and continual attendance at church. i mean, there's just no way to argue anything else because it's spelled out throughout the new testament.
i seriously hope that that wasn't too offensive, but it kind of makes my point for me. you seem like a rational, nice kind of person as far as i can tell, and you're obviously pretty intelligent, yet you openly admit to having a belief in christianity yet failing to live the part as explained so clearly in the bible. and fuck, man, you're probably up there in the top 25% of american christians as far as understanding what is in the book and what the dogma actually is rather than what bullshit your parents told you while not taking you to church during your childhood, which is the norm.
and yet 90% claim to believe in the christian god and that they will go to heaven. THROUGH WORKS, for fuck's sake. that they will go to heaven because they are a good person, rather than through the sacrifice of christ, which if you think about it, is fucking hilarious considering that belief in entering heaven through works rather than through the blood of christ shows an ABSOLUTE lack of knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the religion.
sorry for getting carried away there.

[sonofccn]

Not to ruin the capitalists are evil love-in going on but need I remind you Capitalism and Corporations brought you everything you are using to sustain your life and bashing of said system. Food, drinks, clothes, petrol, computers everything which sustains and allows what we are doing right now comes from "Evil" Capitalism.

Conversely "humane" collectivism typically produces famines and massive, massive heaps of dead bodies. Just a thought from one of us evil Capitalists. ;)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Not to ruin the capitalists are evil love-in going on but need I remind you Capitalism and Corporations brought you everything you are using to sustain your life and bashing of said system. Food, drinks, clothes, petrol, computers everything which sustains and allows what we are doing right now comes from "Evil" Capitalism.

Food and drink always existed. Historically, the chase for profit was largely frowned upon in Europe for merchants whose job was to create extra value on buys and resales. The Church condemned that, but didn't see issues with one producer directly selling his material to "consumers".
The trouble of modern capitalism is that it known no limits, and some resources which should have never been made private, actually were.
Same goes for clothes.
Petrol would have been provided to people with or without capitalism anyway. Same goes for computers.
And yes, it is largely evil in many ways. For one, most of the electronics are produced in places where humans have barely more rights than during the industrial revolution, and quite less than during medium Middle Ages.

Conversely "humane" collectivism typically produces famines and massive, massive heaps of dead bodies. Just a thought from one of us evil Capitalists. ;)

The concentration of leveled quantities of resources tend to produce that, no matter the econo-political system you slap unto that.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I could agree with Picard in that there's no point reading mountains of scriptures if you don't understand their essence. Presumably, one should still read as much as possible to be sure to get the point though.

[sonofccn]

Food and drink always existed.

And unless you killed the beast yourself, dragged it back, gutted it, cooked it and everything else you either A) conducted some manner of capitalism where you trade some resource in exchange for a desired item or B) were a leech.

So once more back to the point Mr. Oragahn the reason you have food in the fridge, and a fridge, is because someone took the time and effort to make it. Which in turn frees you from grubbing in the dirt 24/7 struggling to survive. Which would be my point for being thankful for your blessings instead of just crybabying.

Historically, the chase for profit was largely frowned upon in Europe for merchants whose job was to create extra value on buys and resales. The Church condemned that, but didn't see issues with one producer directly selling his material to "consumers".

That is all very well and noble of the Church. Nor do I condem those who truly embrace the teachings but that doesn't really have anything to do with my point.

Same goes for clothes.

Don't be silly Mr. Oragahn. Without capitalism the stores wouldn't make you any clothes. You'd have to make your own on top of having to grow your own food. Which further robs you of your time and makes your life that much harder.

Petrol would have been provided to people with or without capitalism anyway.

Only if a magical way is found to produce and distribute which requires absolutely no involvement or effort from anyone.;0

But seriously why would anyone mine the stuff and refine it just to give it to you?

Same goes for computers.

Yeah...I'm sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have just linned up to slave away and I'm sure they could have found workers content to slave away for absoluetely no more gain then sitting on their arse. Maybe they could find some Unicorns to do it. :)

The trouble of modern capitalism is that it known no limits, and some resources which should have never been made private, actually were.

I'd disagree. Anything thats a product, anything that can be bought and sold, should be privately owned. Be it water or trees or freaking dirt I don't believe it just belongs to people in some hippish general sense but to those who pay for it.

And yes, it is largely evil in many ways.

Yes evil! Providing all your wants and whims. The devil it is! How dare it!:-0

For one, most of the electronics are produced in places where humans have barely more rights than during the industrial revolution, and quite less than during medium Middle Ages.

Only you would put the freaking Middle Ages above the industrial revolution. I'll take working in a crummy factory without safties over plowing away for some fedual lord any day matey. :)

But to the actual matter at hand capitalism is the only way to improve those places, getting those people with actual money in their pockets which is more than they could make without those electronics factories. That is how societies progress not hippy feel-good sentiments.

The concentration of leveled quantities of resources tend to produce that, no matter the econo-political system you slap unto that.

No only the mismanagment of collectiveistic systems. Funny how they always seem to fail and murder people, to such an extent you could build the freaking memorial to them out of their bones.

-The unrepented Capitalist

[Khas]

I think we've been ignoring one crucial element here. The human ability to pervert, corrupt, or just plain fuck-up anything we set our minds to.

[Picard]

as an agnostic i can make either argument without too much trouble. please don't take this the wrong way, picard, but surely you realize you're not living as a christian is meant to live. insofar as the bible itself is concerned, there are very specific rules and guidelines for christian living which simply cannot be met without at the absolute least continual reading of the bible and continual attendance at church. i mean, there's just no way to argue anything else because it's spelled out throughout the new testament.

I know. There are some reasons, but... I won't try to justify myself.

i seriously hope that that wasn't too offensive, but it kind of makes my point for me. you seem like a rational, nice kind of person as far as i can tell, and you're obviously pretty intelligent, yet you openly admit to having a belief in christianity yet failing to live the part as explained so clearly in the bible. and fuck, man, you're probably up there in the top 25% of american christians as far as understanding what is in the book and what the dogma actually is rather than what bullshit your parents told you while not taking you to church during your childhood, which is the norm.

You weren't offensive, if I considered what you wrote offensive I'd be in pshychiatry right know beacouse my brain... my conscience would be offending me non-stop. But truth is that I find church unnerving. I know I should be going to church, but I know many people go in church out of habit. And that unnerves me; and to make it even worse, when I start going to church every weekend, I start finding myself paying less and less attention to what priest is saying. I fall into the routine - and then, when I feel that, I simply cease going to the church. Even thought it could be considered a test to continue going despite that. But when I don't see point in something, I generally don't do it.

I told you that I won't be trying to justify myself, and now I wrote you same that I thought about writing one quote previously ;-).

and yet 90% claim to believe in the christian god and that they will go to heaven. THROUGH WORKS, for fuck's sake. that they will go to heaven because they are a good person, rather than through the sacrifice of christ, which if you think about it, is fucking hilarious considering that belief in entering heaven through works rather than through the blood of christ shows an ABSOLUTE lack of knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the religion.
sorry for getting carried away there.

Actually, Christ sacrificed himself to make it possible for the people to go to the heaven, to clear them from the Original Sin; but that only means one can go into the heaven, not that he/she will go to the heaven no matter what - one still has to work, and work hard, to achieve that. He "took the sins of the world", but that probably means "original" sins, ones we are born with, and which are removed during the ritual of baptism. Church now supports the view that atheists can go to the Heaven; althought only thing certain is that good atheists will not go to the Hell. Which is why I think that Purgatory, despite not being mentioned in the Bible, makes sense. Christ did say, "believe and your sins will be forgiven", but when you look closer, those that think they can do shit and go to the heaven have brain that isn't worth shit - beacouse, althought anyone can say that he believes, true believer will not do - or will at least try not to do - things that are counted as sins.

Besides, as far as I remember Bible, Christ's coming to the Earth was not in original's God's plan. He came beacouse sins have grown too strong and too many.

Also, while early people (Homo Erectus, early Homo sapiens sapiens, for example - mixing religion and science now) were doing things that were technically sinful, they are probably exempt beacouse they were not aware that it was sin (not sure about EHS).

Besides, God judges by "what is in heart". You might be an atheist, but if you "feel" God, so to speak, you will still go to the heaven. Or at least that's how I understand it. God is Love.

1 Tim 4:10 "it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God who is teh savior of ALL MEN, espeically of believers" (not exclusively believers)

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Jesus: "The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. But the servant who does not know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping. Much is required from the person to whom much is given; much more is required from the person to whom much more is given." (Luke Ch 12) - it seems that Christians will be punished heavier for evil they do than atheists, beacouse they heard Word of God and allegedly believed in it, yet did not obey it. So in all probability, both rewards and punishments for atheists are going to be lighter than those for believers (Christians, but I think Muslims and Jews might partially count - both believe in same God, but Jews think Christ was liar, and Muslims put him as just another prophet - albeit only second to the Muhammad himself).

Then again, Hell isn't a place, it is a state of soul, where soul is forever on torment, doe to being detached from its Creator for the eternety. So one can also argue that atheists don't feel God and are thus condemned to Hell. But, Jesus himself said that God cannot be percieved by reason (althought it did help me when I got into crisis of faith) so what we think about existence of God might not apply on that level. Thus, wether you are "kind of heart" (as Iron Maiden put it) is far more important.

It will be harder - far harder - for atheists to go to the Heaven, beacouse they won't get "believe" "credit". But impossible? No.

Believeing in God also makes it easier not to fall into traps of modern world and thus separate yourself from the God. Atheists are far more suspectible to become idol worshippers (althought false Christian is as good as atheist in that regard; in others, he's far worse beacouse he's lying - to people and to God. And God doesn't like lying. At all.) than believers (one could say - and I think about it that way - that soul always searches for God; but beacouse reason is denying that God exists (or it or soul are not confident in God's existence enough), soul tries to find a replacement. And there you go - modern sects (Scientology; New Age; and so on), extreme materialism, etc. If you took a look at Bible, you'd notice that Jesus was, economically, a socialist (now you don't have to wonder why I'm such devout socialist, if you read my discussions with Admiral Breetai).

I'm quite liberal Christian, but there you go.

Oh, and:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/01/12/c ... heaven.htm

(NOTE: Hitler certainly didn't convert before the death, 'caouse he wouldn't be killing other people with him).

http://www.jutarnji.hr/sudac--i-ateisti ... la/277033/
- you'll need to translate it (it's on Croatian) but I agree with him (in short, to translate title: Monsignour Sudac (surname Sudac means Judge - i hope he judged correctly) : Atheists also can go to the Heaven if they do good deeds.

The Bible says that on the Judgment Day, books will be opened containing a record of everything people have done, good and bad. It says that we will be:

Judged according to our deeds;
judged by every word we have ever spoken;
that all our hidden motives will be exposed,
and everything we have done in secret will be brought out into the open.

So in short, it is also important WHY you are doing good deeds. Christian doing them only beacouse he hopes to go to the Heaven will be far worse off than atheist who genuinely wants to help other people.

And, from this:
http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/atheists.htm

When Jesus said that people couldn't get to heaven except through him, he probably meant that anyone who will never accept that they are a sinner and that he died for them on the cross will not get to heaven, as well as anyone who won't accept his death for them because they don't care that they're sinners. People who don't accept that they are sinners won't want to be made perfect if they think they're already good enough. And the Bible says that only people who are willing to be made spotlessly pure can be in heaven.

Read rest of page too, if you have time.

EDIT:

Not to ruin the capitalists are evil love-in going on but need I remind you Capitalism and Corporations brought you everything you are using to sustain your life and bashing of said system. Food, drinks, clothes, petrol, computers everything which sustains and allows what we are doing right now comes from "Evil" Capitalism.

Conversely "humane" collectivism typically produces famines and massive, massive heaps of dead bodies. Just a thought from one of us evil Capitalists. ;)

Wrong. I'm not opposed to all types of capitalism - but for ease, I just call it "capitalism" and "socialism", instead of "free market capitalism" and "socialistic capitalism".

Problem is that classic capitalism disregards ethics and morale in pursuit of profit. It privatizes everything, including things that should not be private at all (except maybe in Hell), like health, education and some other systems. It sets profit as only measure of man - morale be damned. Many advancemets were scrapped beacouse they did not promise quick profit - I mean, when you look at all things Nikola Tesla designed that were not put into use due to them being unprofitable - we'd be living in friggin' Star Trek by now. As for petrol - I'd rather hydrogen, thank you. Or horses.

Most products that you are praising and we are both using are made in what are basically slave societies, by slaves.

And there are still famines - one third of world has few times more food than it realistically needs, two thirds are dying of hunger in the meantime.

What you are using as a "capitalism" is a correct definition, but not what I think when I talk about capitalism. I might try to be more precise and talk about corporatism, beacouse that is what it is. However, it can also exist without corporations (refer to the Roman Empire) so it might not be correct deifinition either.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Church now supports the view that atheists can go to the Heaven

Modern Roman Church seems to support a lot of nonsense lately. And I'm not just speaking of that bit about the Atheists. :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Food and drink always existed.

And unless you killed the beast yourself, dragged it back, gutted it, cooked it and everything else you either A) conducted some manner of capitalism where you trade some resource in exchange for a desired item or B) were a leech.

So once more back to the point Mr. Oragahn the reason you have food in the fridge, and a fridge, is because someone took the time and effort to make it. Which in turn frees you from grubbing in the dirt 24/7 struggling to survive. Which would be my point for being thankful for your blessings instead of just crybabying.

We should rather consider what we understand by capitalism. I haven't even tried to imply that no aspect of capitalism was already in use ages before capitalism was recognized. But the point is that. Only aspects of it. It would seem that capitalism is a whole, and even selling goods to other people existed before all those aspects existed together for capitalism to emerge.
There is a wide range of definitions in fact. However, the typical greedy capitalism that concentrates the means of production into the hands of a few, that operates on wage labour and tends to promote the monetary profit of a few owners at the expense of a mass of workers, basicaly "capitalists and corporations" as per your post, is something rather new.
The point is that you're saying that capitalism brought us plenty of things. I'm saying that capitalism is not the only system that could have done such a thing. Anything from craftsmanship to communism, with some shades of guild sharing in between, would also be capable of all that. And nationalized means of production, without the utter extreme collectivisation implied from communism, would also provide such products. Profit would not be a final goal per se, but a necessity as to be able to continue to provide the produced goods to citizens in a free economy.
There's just a wide range of possibilities there.

Historically, the chase for profit was largely frowned upon in Europe for merchants whose job was to create extra value on buys and resales. The Church condemned that, but didn't see issues with one producer directly selling his material to "consumers".

That is all very well and noble of the Church. Nor do I condem those who truly embrace the teachings but that doesn't really have anything to do with my point.

It quite has, since several essential goods you listed, including food, could be directly sold to you by a group of farmers.

Same goes for clothes.

Don't be silly Mr. Oragahn. Without capitalism the stores wouldn't make you any clothes. You'd have to make your own on top of having to grow your own food. Which further robs you of your time and makes your life that much harder.

Clothes existed since the dawn of time, and I don't think that everyone made his own shoes, tops and trousers, and relied on the knowledge of those who knew how to make those. Was capitalism there as well?
Now if you think that collecting money for the goods you produced alone and sold to someone also is capitalism, fine. As told above, capitalism is quite a nebulous concept in fact. I was merely rejecting the idea that things we use or have access to today couldn't be provided by anything else but capitalism. What is found in stores isn't my concern because stores are not the be all and end all of common resources.

Petrol would have been provided to people with or without capitalism anyway.

Only if a magical way is found to produce and distribute which requires absolutely no involvement or effort from anyone.;0
But seriously why would anyone mine the stuff and refine it just to give it to you?

Because you're running on the idea that when something is sold to me, it is capitalism. For one, the marxist take on capitalism would obviously not agree with your vision here.
For some reason you have decided that only capitalism, nothing else, would have people realize that petrol could help people move around lands faster and would then exploit this resources in order to attain this goal. Quite curious, really.

Same goes for computers.

Yeah...I'm sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have just linned up to slave away and I'm sure they could have found workers content to slave away for absoluetely no more gain then sitting on their arse. Maybe they could find some Unicorns to do it. :)

Again, who spoke of no possible gain, monetary or else in exchange?
I'm not really going into a debate on what is good or not. I'm just not seeing why capitalism is the only economical model that could have brought us computers. That's quite absurd in fact, considering the large amount of technologies developped before the rise of corporations. At some point, the Church "invested" time into research of some aspects of science. Muslim scientists did a lot in that way, and there wasn't any profit down the damn road. Cooking meat, the wheel and mobile mass printing didn't have capitalism poking its head through the door either, unless I missed something.

The trouble of modern capitalism is that it known no limits, and some resources which should have never been made private, actually were.

I'd disagree. Anything thats a product, anything that can be bought and sold, should be privately owned. Be it water or trees or freaking dirt I don't believe it just belongs to people in some hippish general sense but to those who pay for it.

And I strongly disagree on that, because if it can be privately owned, by the laws of the market and those of people of have friggin wagons of money, they can buy your land, house and arse if they want to, and that's exactly what has actually happened in so many countries, wherein immense areas of arable land don't even belong to the country or the natives of said countries anymore, because capitalism has allowed groups to form, and said groups have gathered some much power and bought so many things that in the end, they decide the laws, they decide your wage, and they can quite literally exterminate your lineage if they so wish.
After all, since anything can be merchandised, let's have someone very very rich buy it. It's all about money these days.
Capitalism is based on free market, and free market is a place where the most powerful can only get more powerful, for the lowlier people (and that includes the midclass) having lesser and lesser chances of being able to do anything to get out of this. Thinking of capitalism without including the human element and the potential of corruption is even more absurd. You cannot dissociate both.

For one, most of the electronics are produced in places where humans have barely more rights than during the industrial revolution, and quite less than during medium Middle Ages.

Only you would put the freaking Middle Ages above the industrial revolution. I'll take working in a crummy factory without safties over plowing away for some fedual lord any day matey. :)

I wouldn't, really. Middle Ages weren't so crass as most people are lead to think.

But to the actual matter at hand capitalism is the only way to improve those places,

Obviously not. It can only make things worse by the way. Capitalism, or reign of the myth of free market, precisely is what lead to the abrogation of the Glass-Steagal act for example.
A barrier that even if it made the market much less free, guaranteed that the law of the jungle wasn't the set of rules the north-american financial sphere would abide to.
Free market is bullshit. It's just as simple as that, as you'll always find sick people to push the limits of what's decent and acceptable even further, until the iron will of an ethical enough archon can't even change anything.
The thing with the Church is that it had some codes of moral, and half the time, it upheld them.
Capitalism has none. In capitalism, and in your view, even the damn air can be thrown into the grinder to turn out a profit. They already did it with dirt and water.

... getting those people with actual money in their pockets which is more than they could make without those electronics factories. That is how societies progress not hippy feel-good sentiments.

Ancient societies have progressed without this same program at their core.
You know, capitalism is capped in a way, because even if it needs people to have money in order to buy stuff, if the system starts to rise the ratio of money per capita, at some point, the value of money will fall, and that means that capital in itself will go down. Inflation, capitalist hate it with a passion. It's no surprise that only capitalists could ever create that filthy yet logical thing called NAIRU. Do you know it?
Basically, how to keep an economy efficient by maintaining specific rates of unemployment. As long as they can still sell crap at a lower prices but to more people, if possible in conjunction with heeps of credits, then let's rock!

The concentration of leveled quantities of resources tend to produce that, no matter the econo-political system you slap unto that.

No only the mismanagment of collectiveistic systems. Funny how they always seem to fail and murder people, to such an extent you could build the freaking memorial to them out of their bones.

-The unrepented Capitalist

Massive famines began as population numbers grew and people moved to cropping their food. This happened before capitalism and wasn't due to mismanagement. The people managing their lands knew what to do since they had been doing it for generations upon generations. Their knowledge was effin' rock solid.
Meanwhile, what has capitalism ended with in terms of food producing? Oh, let me guess. Mass farming, poisoned crops, junk food saturated with shit and health-threatening chemicals, and next, GMOs, because you can always make people dream of greater crops and more profit (since capitalism is the aim at making more profit on a free market, it's purely logical to look for anything that allows this, ethics and some other silly barriers be damned).
You know, I really wanted to avoid that debate of capitalism is dangerous in many ways and all that, but you really didn't give me a chance to look away.
Unrestrained capitalism is not acceptable, but then it wouldn't be capitalism, would it?

[sonofccn]

Wrong. I'm not opposed to all types of capitalism - but for ease, I just call it "capitalism" and "socialism", instead of "free market capitalism" and "socialistic capitalism".

And I in turn would call only "free market capitalism" Capitalism. To me "Socialistic capitalism" or Crony capitalism is just another source of collusion with the goverment.

Problem is that classic capitalism disregards ethics and morale in pursuit of profit.

I really don't see what you mean. Capitalism rewards incentive and work and does not by design reward unethical behavior and indeed places moderation on such vices. Grind up old widows for cat food and people buy other products, pay your wage slaves pennies and they go down the street to a competitor who pays quarters.

But in addition Capitalism, unlike collectivism, does not require virtue on behalf of its particpants. The Baker may be an immoral cad who bakes bread for his own selfish purposes but the town still has fresh bread each and every morning, the same for the cobbler, the same for the wine maker.

It privatizes everything, including things that should not be private at all (except maybe in Hell), like health, education and some other systems.

And I would expect in hell for such things to be public. :)

I honestly do not see why I should pay for someone else. I believe in paying for services rendered, I don't mind roads or that there is a military protecting me from threats both abroad and domestic ect, but I am not indebted to pay for someone else's problem. We are all Freemen, and women, not children and not wards.

Secondly I believe people use their own resources far more wisely and with caution then they exploit "Free" services which prompts needless waste. And as extension buisness perform better when they have a stake in the game unlike public institutions which win or loss come out ahead.

Thirdly it is of my opinion private enterprises are a more efficent use of funds then public. From the US postal service to the public school system such institutions are massive wastes of tax payer dollars with subpar results.

It sets profit as only measure of man

It rewards effort and work, you decide if profit is the only thing that matters.

Many advancemets were scrapped beacouse they did not promise quick profit - I mean, when you look at all things Nikola Tesla designed that were not put into use due to them being unprofitable - we'd be living in friggin' Star Trek by now

More like a parody. Many "high-tech" innovations which don't work. Tesla was a genius don't get me wrong but he had many cracks in his think tank and many of his designs simply were not practical. I stand by the market place in deciding what is and what isn't pratical, by letting free peoples decide if they want to place their skin in the game for your invention or not we ensure that only those that have a purpose.

As for petrol - I'd rather hydrogen, thank you.

Your choice, assuming it was pratical you still have the same problem. Someone has to either provide you hydrogen or the power for you to manufacture your own. Either way you need a Corporation.

Or horses.

Again it is your choice. Over all I find horses smelly, filthy animals and much prefer a car with longer range, lesser maintnence and is cleaner, cars don't drop "leavings" in the city street, than a four legged creature.

Most products that you are praising and we are both using are made in what are basically slave societies, by slaves.

That is your opinion I suppose and you are entitled to it. I however choose to look at it as budding Capitalists making the initial inroads for a more prosperous future they'd never have without those factories paying them far more than they could make without said factories. At which point we scam them with cheap products from some other two bit sink hole and the cycle begans anew. :)

And there are still famines - one third of world has few times more food than it realistically needs, two thirds are dying of hunger in the meantime.

Well that certainly isn't a condemation of Capitalism for making its people productive, better then squashing it like the Soviets, and I would say that is a case for spreading it to those other blighted parts of the globe so they too can grow more food then they could possibly eat.

[sonofccn]

@ Mr. Oragahn

Okay. Suffice it to say we don't disagree. No that is too shallow a word. At the risk of getting a demerit you come off as a crazed Marxist filled with delusional classwarfare blather.

To cut a very long, very dry, very,very wandering post of yours down to size I'll be succient.

A) I define Capitalism as the free exchange of goods and service between two parties. Be they people or corporations.

B) I submit humans will not work for another without compensation including inventing and if compensated it is infact Capitalism, the free trade of resources between two parties.

C) Capitalism is good for everyone. Under it the Rich put up capital to fund ventures or fulfill needs for goods they require and the Poor are employed to fill them and paid wages which they find sufficent for their assets. I do not see this exploitation which seem to permuate your thoughts.

D)Commies badly mismanaged their food production as places like N. Korea, Zimbabwe, USSR and Red China show. The US conversely grows more food than we could possibly eat so given a choice between free market-free ownership and collectivism I know which I would pick.

E) Provided you could find a profitable way to "bottle" it and sell it that couldn't immeditely be undercut by the guy with the lot next door I don't have an issue with air being sold. Its a resource, naturally it should be ownable to someone but I honestly don't see how you'd be able to regulate it. Of course the first to market would make a killing, if you have a worthwhile idea I might be intersted in trying to raise some capital for it. :)

F)I've not doubt missed something but I don't really care. Fun is fun but this is growing tiresome. You have clearly been too badly brainwashed by evil Marxists intent on imposing their brutal slave-ownership over mankind stealing you from the one true path of Capitalism. I'll burn a dollar for your lost way. ;-)

-the unrepented Capitalist

[Admiral Breetai]

I think we've been ignoring one crucial element here. The human ability to pervert, corrupt, or just plain fuck-up anything we set our minds to.

that does not mesh with Picards views that anybody who was able to make in a capitalist system are baby eating satanic pedophiles..and murderers so of course this will be flatly ignored...the mere fact that socialism and communism have historically provided a base for such darker aspects of human desire..to go absolutely ape shit and run wild will also be similarly ignored

man both Mister O and Picard are savvy posters with a good sense of debating but mother of god..do they go into a romansque orgy of hate and bashery whenever this topic comes up

A) I define Capitalism as the free exchange of goods and service between two parties. Be they people or corporations.

with the intent to make a profit of course

B) I submit humans will not work for another without compensation including inventing and if compensated it is infact Capitalism, the free trade of resources between two parties.

to be fair very primitive humans did..tens of thousands of years ago until technology progressed and it became advantageous to seek gain beyond sustaining your family

C) Capitalism is good for everyone. Under it the Rich put up capital to fund ventures or fulfill needs for goods they require and the Poor are employed to fill them and paid wages which they find sufficent for their assets. I do not see this exploitation which seem to permuate your thoughts.

it does exist but you'll find it's when the Capitalist get in bed with the Governments and usually you'll find some paper socialist mouth piece blaring while reaping the benefits

D)Commies badly mismanaged their food production as places like N. Korea, Zimbabwe, USSR and Red China show. The US conversely grows more food than we could possibly eat so given a choice between free market-free ownership and collectivism I know which I would pick.

if it wasn't for the US and it's evil privatized food and grain cartels North Korea would have recently suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties from starvation - this is as recent as six months ago

E) Provided you could find a profitable way to "bottle" it and sell it that couldn't immeditely be undercut by the guy with the lot next door I don't have an issue with air being sold. Its a resource, naturally it should be ownable to someone but I honestly don't see how you'd be able to regulate it. Of course the first to market would make a killing, if you have a worthwhile idea I might be intersted in trying to raise some capital for it. :)

the technology to start manufacturing oxygen and water is likely only about seventy or so years away- I say we market the fuck out of it

in fact i'll take a step further in the future all colonization of the solar system and eventually beyond..should be run exclusively by the private sector (any one joining this should get shares etc etc of course the idea is to create a cosmos of investors )

any attempt by the government to stop this should be met by violent and subversive means

F)I've not doubt missed something but I don't really care. Fun is fun but this is growing tiresome. You have clearly been too badly brainwashed by evil Marxists intent on imposing their brutal slave-ownership over mankind stealing you from the one true path of Capitalism. I'll burn a dollar for your lost way. ;-)

-the unrepented Capitalist

this made me laugh though they probably have more to fear of me than you..I'm of the opinion that the state should one day be abolished entirely

[General Donner]

wouldn't a true democracy actually be the worst possible government? it's bad enough that you don't have to pass an intelligence test to vote on who gets to make your decisions for you, having the ability to vote yourself anything you want would destroy the planet in a month. taxes would be voted right out of existence while at the same time at least 50% of the populace would vote itself out of having to work for a living, and good luck explaining why that's a bad thing to the 50% of america which is stupider than the average american. we're talking about a group of people who elected george w. bush president TWICE.

Hm? The Republicans seem to be the ones who are more inclined to vote against dolism. (Albeit inconsistently so, at times.) Though they certainly are the anti-tax party par excellence.

90% of us citizens still believe that christianity is the one true way, when even swst was able to put up a pretty good fight against that concept. i would love to have some statistics on how many of those 90% have actually read the book. i'm guessing something like 5%, since less than 50% of those people even bother to go to church, when the bible specifically requires christians to do so.

Without quoting any survey, I'd think it's a rather smaller percentage than that. Even double-digit percentages of evangelicals don't believe in exclusive Christianity these days.

Also, where in Christian scripture do you find regular church attendance being required for salvation? Just to me as a protestant, that sounds suspiciously like legalism and works-righteousness.

and yet 90% claim to believe in the christian god and that they will go to heaven. THROUGH WORKS, for fuck's sake. that they will go to heaven because they are a good person, rather than through the sacrifice of christ, which if you think about it, is fucking hilarious considering that belief in entering heaven through works rather than through the blood of christ shows an ABSOLUTE lack of knowledge of even the most basic tenets of the religion.

You might want to emend that to "Biblical Christian God" or some similar qualifier. There are large professedly Christian denominations that do in fact teach works-righteousness as part of their basic dogmata: the Roman Catholic church is the obvious example, but we also have the various Orthodox sects, Coptics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others. In the USA, also Mormons ... though I don't think I'm being terribly intolerant if I say as much as, quite many people have sincere doubts whether they should "count" as Christian in any sense of the word.

For any of these people and their religious hierarchies, believing in salvation through works is not mistaken. Indeed, to many of them the protestant (and in my opinion, and apparently yours as well, Biblical) idea of salvation through faith alone, without works, is damnable heresy.

But insofar as what you're saying applies to protestant believers (and sadly, it all too often does), I agree with you.

[General Donner]

Church now supports the view that atheists can go to the Heaven; althought only thing certain is that good atheists will not go to the Hell. Which is why I think that Purgatory, despite not being mentioned in the Bible, makes sense. Christ did say, "believe and your sins will be forgiven", but when you look closer, those that think they can do shit and go to the heaven have brain that isn't worth shit - beacouse, althought anyone can say that he believes, true believer will not do - or will at least try not to do - things that are counted as sins.

How can we be certain that good atheists are not going to Hell? Theologically speaking, that appears rather shaky. I might point to such passages as Revelation 21:8 to the contrary.

You are (or so I believe, at least) correct that a true believer will attempt to refrain from every kind of sin. In the Bible Paul writes to the Romans that they shouldn't continue in sin, even though they're under grace. (Especially because of that, in fact.) But that's only a natural consequence of true faith, as you also write. Faith produces good works. The works themselves aren't worth anything with regards to salvation, however, though they do make life on this Earth a little better.

Besides, as far as I remember Bible, Christ's coming to the Earth was not in original's God's plan. He came beacouse sins have grown too strong and too many.

Salvation became necessary because of Original Sin, which was the disobedience of Adam and Eve to God. Before there was sin, there was obviously no need for atonement for sin. But afterwards, Christ's sacrifice was needed to save mankind.

The earliest texts Christians commonly interpret as prophecies of Christ occur already in the Book of Genesis. Traditionally, God's words to Eve herself were considered a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Jesus: "The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. But the servant who does not know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping. Much is required from the person to whom much is given; much more is required from the person to whom much more is given." (Luke Ch 12) - it seems that Christians will be punished heavier for evil they do than atheists, beacouse they heard Word of God and allegedly believed in it, yet did not obey it. So in all probability, both rewards and punishments for atheists are going to be lighter than those for believers (Christians, but I think Muslims and Jews might partially count - both believe in same God, but Jews think Christ was liar, and Muslims put him as just another prophet - albeit only second to the Muhammad himself).

I read the exact opposite in the passage. Atheists, in modern society, are overwhelmingly people who have knowingly rejected Christ -- I really don't think I'm exaggerating if I say, you would've had to have lived your whole life under a rock to be unaware of Christianity, at least in the Western world. Thus they know full well what God expects of us, yet fail to believe in it. Logically, then -- as you also conclude -- they will be more heavily punished than, say, tribesmen in Africa who never heard God's Word.

In its original context, of course, the saying referred to the works-righteous Jews of early 1st-century Judaea, who failed to recognize Christ in their midst. But I personally, at least, think you're on to something in seeing a modern application in it, as well.

Oh, and:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/01/12/c ... heaven.htm

(NOTE: Hitler certainly didn't convert before the death, 'caouse he wouldn't be killing other people with him).

That article actually makes a rather good case for atheists actually going to Hell, as far as I can tell from reading it. The guy writing also does a good job at exploring the logical consequences of that belief.

As for Hitler, notably, he was baptized, lived and died in the Roman Catholic Church. So he wouldn't need any converting from a Catholic perspective. Though most likely repentance and confession to a priest. (And maybe anointment? I'm not fully up to date on all Catholic rituals.)

So in short, it is also important WHY you are doing good deeds. Christian doing them only beacouse he hopes to go to the Heaven will be far worse off than atheist who genuinely wants to help other people.

I agree fully with this sentiment.