Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

Yes, I know that's what you were saying. I just can't make any sense of it. The text does not support that reading at all.

That's because you lack the anthropological view of Biblical stories.

No, it's because I can read.

As a trained primary school teacher can tell you there are degrees and stages of reading ability. The later stages of reading ability involve exchanging thoughts and ideas with the author, sometimes disagreeing with the author, sometimes thinking ahead and using the author's thoughts and ideas to form one's own new ideas.

There is also the earlier stage of reading ability where the reader is following a set of instructions, as for flat pack furniture. The earliest stage is phonetic where actual meaning is a bonus .

[Gary Childress]

That depends. What amount of civic participation do you regard as definitive of "democratic"?

I don't know. What amount of civic participation do you think best defines a "democratic" society? I don't know where to draw the line.

Well, if a polity has only one political party, one political program, and one political direction, and nobody gets even the chance to vote for something contrary to that package and have an impact, would you call that "democratic"?

Social contract theory is merely an heuristic device. It's not a description of a thing that has ever existed in reality. There was no "social contract" agreed upon by anybody. It was only proposed as a kind of "way of thinking about it," not as a historical truth.

So it's not the case that the US Constitution and Bill or rights or the Magna Carta would count as social contracts?

They're "contracts," alright. But not "social contracts." The "social contract" idea is a Rousseauian fiction. There never was a time when the whole of society "contracted" to abandon or subordinate some of their rights and freedoms to the collective. No historical incident of that kind ever took place.

You're confusing "constitution" or "bill of rights" with the idea of "social contract." You'd need to read Rousseau in order to see what he meant by "social contract." It wasn't something like the US Constitution or the Magna Carta at all. Neither of those had anything close to "social contract" agreement behind them.

Not at all...unless you mean the "freedom" to steal somebody else's legitimate property.

Well, without laws,

Who's talking about that idea? Not me.

How would you secure a persons goods against "the law of the jungle" as you call it, without having laws that accord with property rights? But if property is a "right," then that means that it is a divine entitlement that exists prior to laws, and which good laws are morally bound to recognize and affirm.

However, it seems like a social contract of some kind must exist in order to keep the would be murders from doing their thing by having police or something.

You're mixing up two different things: social contract, and laws. They're not the same, and not even related.

Social contract is Rousseau's fictional nonsense about everybody having agreed to give up their freedoms to the State, which has never happened. Laws are practical arrangments human beings make to compel each other in certain ways, and they have happened. They're not even the same issue. You can and, in fact, do have laws without any "social contract."

What are you defining as a "social contract"? If the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta are contracts but not "social contracts" then what are they? Anti-social or asocial contracts? If they apply to a society and are "contracts" then that sounds like a "social" contract to me.

[Will Bouwman]

The words "social democracy" are common in western Europe. It's no more a reality there than anywhere else however.

Well, I happen to live in a country in western Europe which has a National Health Service that everyone who has the means contributes to and was introduced by a government that was far more socialist than any likely to be elected in the near future, our current Labour government included. It is, to my understanding of what you mean by the word, a collectivist endeavour. The Conservative Party has been in power more often than not in the 75 years since its founding, and would abolish the NHS to privatise health care were it not for the fact that it would make them unelectable for a generation, at least. The majority of the population thinks National Insurance is a good deal; we democratically choose to collectivise health care.

You can't have a society that is both Socialist (i.e. collectivist) and democratic.

We can and we do.

Socialism is, by its very nature, anti-democratic.

Again: not if people vote for it. What do you think democracy means?

[Immanuel Can]

That's because you lack the anthropological view of Biblical stories.

No, it's because I can read.

As a trained primary school teacher...

Does that have some relevance to your reading of Scripture? I can't see that it does.

[Immanuel Can]

What are you defining as a "social contract"?

Rousseau's concept. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social ... n-Rousseau.

If the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta are contracts but not "social contracts" then what are they?

Well, the Magna Carta was a political concession between a king and barons, but involved only the higher levels of society, not the feudal peasants of the day, which still comprised about 80% of the population. The US Constitution was the founding document of a particular country. And women, children or slaves had no say in its creation or terms. These are limited contracts between certain persons and for specific purposes. Rousseau's idea is of a sort of pre-historic, universal consent.

"Social contract," as you're understanding it, it would seem, might mean anything, provided it was used to guide some kind of society, I presume. Rousseau had a very specific notion about what was required in order for a "social contract" to exist. He never thought of it as an actual contract. He knew there was no historical event that created such a thing. It was an exercise of his political imagination, not of fact.

[Immanuel Can]

The words "social democracy" are common in western Europe. It's no more a reality there than anywhere else however.

Well, I happen to live in a country in western Europe which has a National Health Service

We've been over that. You're not in a Socialist country. Your in a "capitalist" one that has a few welfare programs. These programs are fully funded by, and would not survive except for, non-Socialist economics. The welfare programs are all a drag on that, since none of them is ever self-sustaining. But they may be worth having, if they prevent something worse from ensuing. But they wouldn't last a week without large infusions of cash from taxation taken from the free market.

You can't have a society that is both Socialist (i.e. collectivist) and democratic.

We can and we do.

You don't, and nobody ever has. Socialism rules it out.

Socialism is, by its very nature, anti-democratic.

Again: not if people vote for it. What do you think democracy means?

If you had voted for Hitler, would that have made the Third Reich not a dictatorship? If you'd voted for Stalin or Mao, would that keep them from robbing and killing you?

A person can "democratically" divest himself of his democratic freedoms, and thereafter live as a slave. That's what happens whenever people vote for Socialism.

[iambiguous]

Maybe the eye of a needle was a metaphor?

This part:

"The 'Eye of the Needle' has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate." wiki

In fact, there's not much in the Bible you can't rationalize merely by putting your own self-serving spin on it.

Then this part: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... adictions/
https://www.answering-christianity.com/ ... ctions.htm

Perhaps Jesus meant that it is (for all intents and purposes) impossible for a rich man to get into heaven but not as impossible for a man who used to be rich but gave all his wealth to the needy to get into heaven. Maybe the same man who was once rich could get into heaven, he just couldn't keep his status as a "rich" man?

As far as I am concerned what Jesus said about anything at all eventually comes back around to this:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" in John 14:6

Squabble on and on regarding what the Bible says Jesus said [or did] back then. In the end though it's all moot if you refuse to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

And in fact, IC claims that there is a place to go -- https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animate ... -tEALw_wcB -- in order to find all the facts that will allow you to be born again.

And, in part, I do want to be "born again" myself...to embody what Christianity once made me feel. So, I watched and responded to every single video. Then the part where IC insists these videos at YouTube will provide you with all the historical and scientific evidence you'll ever need to prove the existence of the Christian God. Yet he refuses to explore them in depth with me." Or, to the best of my knowledge, with anyone else here for that matter.

It makes absolutely no sense to me. He is himself convinced that the evidence is there allowing us to know that the Christian God resides in Heaven as readily as we can demonstrate the Pope resides in the Vatican.

For any number of Christians I have known over the years nothing is more important than saving souls.

However, IC seems to tell us that there were members of Jesus' following who were rich but not commanded to give up their wealth in order to follow him. So not sure how that plays out. Maybe they were more generous with their wealth or used it toward benevolent purposes?

Okay, how then is that reconciled with, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Instead, historically, Christianity had to be reconciled with capitalism. Everything from the Protestant Reformation to Calvinism to rendering unto Caesar to prosperity gospel.

[Will Bouwman]

The words "social democracy" are common in western Europe. It's no more a reality there than anywhere else however.

Well, I happen to live in a country in western Europe which has a National Health Service

We've been over that. You're not in a Socialist country.

Hang on a mo:

...I can read.

You sure about that? The words that you quoted are "social democracy".

Your in a "capitalist" one that has a few welfare programs.

I can't be:

"Capitalism" doesn't exist.

These programs are fully funded by, and would not survive except for, non-Socialist economics. The welfare programs are all a drag on that, since none of them is ever self-sustaining. But they may be worth having, if they prevent something worse from ensuing. But they wouldn't last a week without large infusions of cash from taxation taken from the free market.

That is one advantage of a social democracy. It is what the British electorate routinely vote for.

You can't have a society that is both Socialist (i.e. collectivist) and democratic.

We can and we do.

You don't, and nobody ever has. Socialism rules it out.

Do yourself a favour and read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Socialism is, by its very nature, anti-democratic.

Again: not if people vote for it. What do you think democracy means?

If you had voted for Hitler, would that have made the Third Reich not a dictatorship? If you'd voted for Stalin or Mao, would that keep them from robbing and killing you?

None of them were social democrats. I wouldn't have voted for them.

A person can "democratically" divest himself of his democratic freedoms, and thereafter live as a slave. That's what happens whenever people vote for Socialism.

People didn't vote for Stalin or Mao. It's a bit more complicated with Hitler; he attempted a coup with the Beer Hall Putsch. It failed, got him thrown in jail where he wrote Mein Kampf and after serving 9 months of a 5 year sentence, decided to focus on legal means. Having lost to Paul von Hindenberg for the presidency he was appointed Chancellor from which position he seized power for his Nazi party. None of the murderous regimes you appeal to was ever democratically elected.

[FlashDangerpants]

These programs are fully funded by, and would not survive except for, non-Socialist economics. The welfare programs are all a drag on that, since none of them is ever self-sustaining. But they may be worth having, if they prevent something worse from ensuing. But they wouldn't last a week without large infusions of cash from taxation taken from the free market.

That is one advantage of a social democracy. It is what the British electorate routinely vote for.

The neoliberal in me feels required to point out that actually Immanuel Can might be economically illiterate to a roughly similar extent that he is philosophically illiterate. Welfare programs functions as insurance and like all insurance policies the point is to spread the cost across a wide population of events that would be financially devastating for the individual. The notion of there being any need for them to be "self sustaining" is a canard that would be rejected both by socialists and capitalists.

It's like saying that your car insurer wouldn't last a week without collecting premiums from policy holders: True, but only in the stupidest way possible.

[Immanuel Can]

You're in a "capitalist" one that has a few welfare programs.

I can't be:

"Capitalism" doesn't exist.

Right. That's why I put the word in quotations. I was deferring to the Socialist preference in that, because I didn't know how to explain it to you without using your preferred vocabulary. But I could have better said, "free market," or "profit taking," or something else like that.

I stand by my claim: there is no "Capitalism." There is, however, such a thing as "capital." It's just not an ideology, like Socialism is. And I've explained earlier why it's not an ideology, so maybe I won't do all that again.

But you're definitely not in a Socialist country: does the government "own the means of production"? That's Marx's requirement. Does the UK meet that standard?

If you had voted for Hitler, would that have made the Third Reich not a dictatorship? If you'd voted for Stalin or Mao, would that keep them from robbing and killing you?

None of them were social democrats. I wouldn't have voted for them.

Nor would I. But the point is simple: you can "vote away" your freedoms. That doesn't result in democracy. It's the death of democracy. And Socialism is a totalizing ideology which cannot allow rivals. Everybody must be forced to join the collective. So it's inherently anti-democratic.

[Will Bouwman]

But you're definitely not in a Socialist country...

I didn't say I was. Again, the words that I used were "social democracy". Given that you quoted them you cannot seriously pretend that is not what I said.
Since clicking a link is apparently beyond you, here are the opening paragraphs:

"A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and with socialism, such as nationalized government services.
More specifically, a mixed economy may be variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise. Common to all mixed economies is a combination of free-market principles and principles of socialism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Again, I am not qualified to make a diagnosis, but your behaviour has all the hallmarks of psychological rigidity. Take a look:

"In psychology, rigidity, or mental rigidity, refers to an obstinate inability to yield or a refusal to appreciate another person's viewpoint or emotions and the tendency to perseverate, which is the inability to change habits and modify concepts and attitudes once developed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigidity_(psychology)

[Belinda]

No, it's because I can read.

As a trained primary school teacher...

Does that have some relevance to your reading of Scripture? I can't see that it does.

Concerning "I can read"(Immanuel Can) there are degrees of reading ability .
A degree of fluency is need for the reader to understand metaphor, personification, and allegory, to have an internal argument with the author, and to compare what the author is saying with other views such as the historical / anthropological view.

[Belinda]

You're in a "capitalist" one that has a few welfare programs.

I can't be:

"Capitalism" doesn't exist.

Right. That's why I put the word in quotations. I was deferring to the Socialist preference in that, because I didn't know how to explain it to you without using your preferred vocabulary. But I could have better said, "free market," or "profit taking," or something else like that.

I stand by my claim: there is no "Capitalism." There is, however, such a thing as "capital." It's just not an ideology, like Socialism is. And I've explained earlier why it's not an ideology, so maybe I won't do all that again.

But you're definitely not in a Socialist country: does the government "own the means of production"? That's Marx's requirement. Does the UK meet that standard?

If you had voted for Hitler, would that have made the Third Reich not a dictatorship? If you'd voted for Stalin or Mao, would that keep them from robbing and killing you?

None of them were social democrats. I wouldn't have voted for them.

Nor would I. But the point is simple: you can "vote away" your freedoms. That doesn't result in democracy. It's the death of democracy. And Socialism is a totalizing ideology which cannot allow rivals. Everybody must be forced to join the collective. So it's inherently anti-democratic.

But my country at present has a Labour, that is broadly socialist, government which was voted for by a democratic process!

I guess Immanuel is an American. In the US even the Democrats are what we in the UK would call Right Wing.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're definitely not in a Socialist country...

I didn't say I was. Again, the words that I used were "social democracy".

And I pointed out that that is not a real thing. It's an oxymoron. Socialism cannot allow democracy.

[Immanuel Can]

As a trained primary school teacher...

Does that have some relevance to your reading of Scripture? I can't see that it does.

Concerning "I can read"(Immanuel Can) there are degrees of reading ability .

There are also hermeneutics. And reading some kinds of texts requires hermeneutical knowledge and skill that reading primary school books doesn't even offer.