1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Early Libertarian-Socialist Free Love Christians

Discussion in 'Theological Concepts' started by Vouthon, Feb 15, 2019.

  1. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,307
    Ratings:
    +1,949
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments: Epiphanes - On Righteousness

    Clement of Alexandria: Stromata, Book 3


    "The righteousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality...All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by justice an innate equality. Common justice is given to all equally...Customs geared toward private ownership have cut apart and eaten away at the the universal equality of the divine law...

    The ideas of 'Mine' and 'Thine' crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use.

    The Creator and father of all...did not make a distinction between female and male, rational and irrational, nor between anything else at all; rather he shared out sight equally and universially...

    With a view to the permanence of the race, God has implanted in men a strong and ardent [sexual] desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God's decree.
    "


    (Epiphanes (late 1st Century or early 2nd Century), Carpocratian Christian (On Righteousness, Strom 3.7.2–3))​


    Epiphanes (gnostic) - Wikipedia


    Epiphanes is the author of On Righteousness,[1] a notable early Gnostic Christian literary work that promotes communist principles, that was published and discussed by Clement of Alexandria, in Stromaties, III...

    According to Clement, Epiphanes was born on Cephalonia in the late 1st Century or early 2nd Century to Carpocrates (his father), and Alexandria of Cephalonia (his mother). Epiphanes died at the age of 17...

    Vanderbilt Professor Kathy L. Gaca promotes a view of Epiphanes as one of the voices in early Christianity who held a positive and liberationist view of sexual pleasure, and who was among those like him who were ultimately silenced by the victorious leadership represented by Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine


    A ridiculously strange and paradoxical title for a thread, I know, but there really is no other way to describe the group I'm about to discuss here - as you will soon learn. I welcome your thoughts on this early form of heretical Christianity The quotation above is from the son of Carpocrates, the early second century founder of this Christian sect.

    I'm talking about the so-called Libertine Christians of the first century church in Corinth, later castigated by their enemies as antinomians (from the Greek: ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, [moral] "law") and who evolved into the Carpocratians of the second century CE, only for their ideas to resurface in the medieval 'Brethren of the Free Spirit' and then in the Ranters of 17th century England, and whose modern heirs in spirit were surely the Free Love Hippies of the 1960s.

    This controversial heresy had uniquely Gentile Christian roots and developed very early in some of the churches founded by the Apostle Paul, so its a remarkably primitive perspective in the Christian tradition. His First Letter to the Corinthians was, in part, a dialogue with the views of this sectarian faction: conceding certain of their understandings of doctrine while strongly criticising other ones.

    But first, some context.

    There are many fascinating early Christian heresies that ultimately failed to convince the developing proto-orthodox church-majority of their views but which, nonetheless, provide us - whether through their extant writings or references to them in the literature of their patristic opponents - with invaluable insight into a rich ferment of ideas from a time when, as Kathy L. Gaca notes in her book The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity: "Christianity was still a countercultural movement partly shaped by communal social ideals" (p.274).

    Some of these sects, like the Valentinian Gnostics, were brain-numbingly metaphysical and arcane; others were radically egalitarian, including the holy-spirit guided Montanist church which recognised women as bishops and priests but also encouraged ethical rigorism and strict fasts; another variety were fanatically ascetic, such as the Encratite Christians who forbade marriage and practised vegetarianism; while others again were devoutly Jewish and Torah-observant but also socially radical, like the Ebionite Christians who adhered to voluntary poverty and rejected the Apostle Paul as an apostate from the law of Moses. And then you had the good old Carpocratian Christians, who - according to the partisan wording of the church father st. Irenaeus - taught their "followers to perform every obscenity and every sinful act" as a means of salvation, meaning absolutely free sexual licence and hedonism.

    (continued....)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,307
    Ratings:
    +1,949
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    The possibilities and diversity of doctrine were nearly endless and the mainstream 'proto-orthodox' church (in a sense) agreed with and rejected elements of each, in its own sort of via media or middle path between the different extremes.

    As the atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explains in his 2014 book, "How Jesus became God":


    THE PARADOXES OF ORTHODOX Christianity emerged from two brutal facts. First, some passages of scripture appear to affirm completely different views. Orthodox thinkers realized that it was necessary to affirm all of these passages necessary to affirm all of these passages, even though they appeared to be at odds with one another.

    But affirming these different passages, at one and the same time, necessarily led to paradoxical
    affirmations. Second, different groups of heretics stated views in direct opposition to one another affirmations. Second, different groups of heretics stated views in direct opposition to one another
    , and the orthodox thinkers knew that they had to reject each of these views.


    This meant that the orthodox had to attack a view from one side as wrong while also attacking the opposite view as wrong. But both of two opposing views cannot be completely wrong, or nothing is right, and so the orthodox—in attacking opposing views—had to affirm part of each view as being right and the rest as being wrong. The result was a paradox that each of the opposing sides was wrong in what it denied but right in what it affirmed.

    Heretical Christian movements were wont to take the logic of 'one position' and go the full hog with it. As an example, the Carpocratian Christians believed the sex impulse was natural and God-ordained, and that God had made everything common to mankind at the beginning, and so considered patriarchal, monogamous and polygamous marriage to have been introduced through the sins of men. For this reason, they believed in sexual freedom outside the bonds of marriage and practised polyandry, sleeping with each other as they pleased without compunction.

    The ascetic Encratitite Christians countered with the view that the sex impulse, if not contained, could be destructive: resulting in self-centeredness, rape, abuse and moral decline. For this reason, they opposed marriage entirely and enforced celibacy on the entire community, near enough.

    The orthodox (with aberrant exceptions) came to affirm elements of both contradictory positions and to reject the remainder of each: sex was natural and good. Marriage was good. True, Christians had a newfound freedom in Christ but it shouldn't mean that one is enslaved to lustful passions either, which are not good either. Faithful monogamous sex is the best way to go therefore.

    Among this plurality of sects and theologies, the 'Libertine' strain stands out in particular not only for its notoriety in the ancient world and remarkable persistence down the centuries, in one form or another, but equally due to the fact that its provocative "sexual principles" and proto-libertarian-communist social ethic might actually (according to one commentator) have "had a remote chance of succeeding, for among second-century Christians the question was not whether communal principles were desirable, but what those principles should be and how far they should be taken" (ibid.), to reference Gaca again (who is Associate Professor of Classical and Mediterranean Studies at Vanderbilt University) and indeed because "this apostolic ideal of equitable sharing did not disappear without a trace once Christianity became more fully absorbed into society, with its man-and-wife conventions of marriage, childrearing, and property ownership, for communal monastic orders developed in support of this ideal." (ibid.)

    In his epistles, Paul's engages in rhetorical disputes with his opponents - namely, (1) the 'Judaizers' (Galatians 2:14) or circumcision faction, who still believed in the necessity of Gentile converts complying with the Mosaic covenant and being ritually segregated from Gentiles, (2) the 'Ascetics' who reasoned that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians 7:1) and even forbade marriage and (3) the 'Libertines' (1 Corinthians 5-6) who believed that so-called 'Christian freedom' from the constraints of ritualistic law now meant that, "Anything is permissible" (1 Corinthians 6:12-20), which compelled Paul to tell them, "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13) and to remind them of the sacredness of their bodies: "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? He who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Do you not see that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? for God has said, The two of them will become one flesh. Therefore glorify God with your body." (1 Corinthians 6).

    The Libertine strain in the early churches had led some Christians to engage in causal sex as a legitimate lifestyle: "It is actually reported that there is sexual licence among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans" (1 Corinthians 5).

    This was a rather extreme response to St. Paul's doctrine of grace:


    Time, Freedom, and The Common Good


    The second, and certainly most influential version of individual inner freedom emerged from the tradition of biblical thought by way of the new Christian dispensation.

    Enunciated by St. Paul, the notion of personal freedom was finally sanctified. Eschewing the bondage of ritualistic obedience, St. Paul...assuring his adherents that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom," admonished them to remember that "for freedom, Christ has set us free"...Freedom seems to have been proclaimed as an obligation to think for oneself [and] commit oneself to the conclusion of one's thought



    The prominent New Testament scholar Richard N. Longenecker (who is a respected expert on Pauline theology) explains in his book, Paul: Apostle of Liberty that in speaking with the "Gentile Christian libertines" the interesting factor is that:


    "in dealing with their thought, Paul begins by unhesitatingly accepting their fundamental position that the Christian is free from all earthly restraint...the Apostle begins by agreeing with them in what had probably become current among the Corinthian libertines as a maxim...[but] in their perverted idea of Christian liberty [was] a specious plea for sexuality laxity. Yet even here, Paul begins by agreeing with their basic tenet.

    The Apostle could easily be charged with being unscrupulous at this point [in] his agreement with his erring pupils' basic claim...In actuality Paul did agree with them - though only up to a point...The fact that "all things are lawful for me" must be constantly tempered by that realization that "not all things are profitable" and the determination that "I will not be enslaved by anything"...He thus begins by agreeing that the Gospel indicative of Christian liberty is indeed a declaration that all things are lawful to the Christian.

    But he goes on to insist that the imperative "do not submit to a yoke of slavery" must be heeded, a factor the libertines had ignored in their slavery to their own sinful passions..." (p. 213).​


    We don't know exactly what became of the Corinthian Libertines - if they eventually conformed to Paul's corrections or drifted off into their own sect. What is apparent, nonetheless, is that their fundamental doctrinal beliefs were still current in fringe heretical Christian thought at the turn of the first century and up to the time in the late second century when Sts. Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus referred to the Carpocratians and quoted from their writings, which bear striking similarities to the early libertines.

    (continued....)
     
    #2 Vouthon, Feb 15, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,307
    Ratings:
    +1,949
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Carpocrates taught that human beings should strive to live life vigorously, and aim to experience every condition of life ideally in one lifetime. If we can trust the patristic critics of his doctrine (and we need to exercise some caution when they aren't quoting directly from works by summarizing), he believed that one would continually reincarnate - similar to 'samsara' in Dharmic religions and Platonism but with a hedonistic solution - until one had experienced everything this life had to offer, and ideally if one was able to experience everything one could in just one lifetime, then the transmigration of the soul would cease and the liberated person would therefore go to heaven in 'completeness', having become like Jesus. If one failed to accomplish this salvific freedom, the penalty would be that the soul will return to 'pay the very last mite,' a concept the Carpocratians took from their interpretation of Jesus's parable in Luke 12:58, which Catholics often read as a description of purgatory, but the Carpocratians understood as referring to the bondage of reincarnation.

    The ideal life, therefore, for the Carpocratian Christians was a life whereby one has experienced all, either through successive rebirths or preferably in a single full life. They appear to have adapted this doctrine from Jesus's words in the Gospel of John that: “A thief comes only to steal, kill and destroy. I have come that they [human beings] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

    A complicated doctrine, no doubt, and greatly advanced in metaphysical speculation since the days of Paul's Corinthian Libertines, but the same essential idea of Christian freedom and life-affirmingness is present.


    "So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practice them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion...

    Men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience....

    They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life...unless, indeed, by a single incarnation, one may be able to...by once and for all, and with equal completeness, doing all those things which we dare not either speak..., in order that, as their writings express it, their souls, having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their departure, not be wanting in any particular.

    It is necessary to insist upon this, lest, on account of some one thing being still wanting to their deliverance, they should be compelled once more to become incarnate. They affirm that for this reason Jesus spoke the following parable,,,

    And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. They write: "We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men -some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature.""


    --Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Bk. I, Ch. 25, 4


    In the late second century, St. Irenaeus explains that the Carpocratian tradition denied the virgin birth of Jesus, believing that he had born naturally from Mary and Joseph by normal intercourse:


    "They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was steadfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the Unbegotten God?"

    --Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Bk. I, Ch. 25, 1-2

    See this by Thomas Whitley a PhD Candidate at Florida State University in Religions of Western Antiquity:


    Who is Carpocrates?


    From Origen and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Epiphanius all the way to Augustine and John of Damascus, the common motif of Carpocrates’ heresy runs deep. Even Clement of Alexandria says that it was through Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes that “the greatest blasphemy followed against the name of Christ” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.2.5.1). Carpocrates may never have become as famous as some of his opponents, but he was certainly infamous.

    Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, identified God’s righteousness as “a kind of communion together with equality” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.2.6.1). Private property then transgressed this higher ideal of God, including the possession of a wife.

    Epiphanes taught that the command “you will not lust after your neighbor’s wife” must be a joke of the Lawgiver, for “the very one who gives the sexual desire to sustain this [process] of birth commands to take it away, while taking it away from none of the other living creatures” and in issuing such a command “he is forcing what is in common to be individual” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.2.8.2.

    To the opponents of Carpocrates, this theology was, as Clement mocked, “fornicating righteousness” and Theodoret said that they “make licentiousness law” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.2.10.1; Theodoret, Compendium Haereticarum Fabularum 1.5). These Carpocratian theological and philosophical explanations were simply excuses to more “orthodox” authorities, designed to justify licentious behavior.

    Carpocrates represented an understanding of God that resulted in a more “liberal” relationship of a person to his or her body, which would have been especially troublesome to his opponents...Carpocrates’ understanding of the body and sexuality, however, needed to be refuted if the ascetic project was to be successful. In some cases, Carpocrates’ teachings were misrepresented or exaggerated to serve as a foil to the consolidating ideals of asceticism. In other cases, the “orthodox” Christians slandered Carpocrates with outlandish charges or said that he taught that salvation was achieved by doing every evil deed possible. In all cases, though, the goal was to stifle Carpocrates’ “radical” ideas and deter Christians from following his teachings or any other “heretical” lifestyle or philosophy.

    For those engaging in the larger pre- and post-Nicene conversation about what to do with one’s body, Carpocrates and the Carpocratians were necessary and useful conversation partners. Carpocrates deserves the attention, though, not just because of who he was, but also because of what he represents. Beyond simply providing another example of the plurality of both ancient Judaism and Christianity, Carpocrates represents early Christian opposition to asceticism

    One would expect that someone who represented “the greatest blasphemy” against the name of Christ would have received enormous attention from scholars of early Christianity.
     
    #3 Vouthon, Feb 15, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,536
    Ratings:
    +11,971
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Some years ago at a different religious website, a guy posted that Jesus was a true conservative-- and I darn near fell off the chair laughing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    667
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Follower (and Writer) of the Mune Shinri
    Even the Hippies weren't actually about free love and peacefulness. They were a bunch of mooches and thieves. They did stuff like stay at people's houses without any sort of work or rent, and aggressively panhandled stuff.

    And when you hear about this history, it suddenly stops happening for some unknown reason. Communism and socialism always fails for some unknown reason. They think if people don't know about it, they won't know why socialism is fundamentally flawed. Communism is flawed because it uses force to impose socialism, resulting in large number of deaths. So we need to talk about what's wrong with socialism because people keep fawning over it.

    We can talk about Cuba, we can talk about Venezuela, we can talk about much of the EU but we won't. We're gonna talk about good old American Detroit.

    Detroit started as a car capital of the US. Socialists will tell you that it was a victim of its own success because capitalism doesn't work. Are you sure? Because what is recorded as actually happening is that unions started with high work salaries for even the lowest workers (raising costs), and mandatory ideal hours (raising costs). The result was because they couldn't cut the wages of the workers they had to cut the product, which resulted in stuff like lost sales and recalls. Also, because even slackers were making decently (and they probably made the harder workers pay more union dues because they make more money), people lost the incentive to work hard. I'm gonna pause here and repeated that, people lost the incentive to work hard because hard work didn't pay. This is why socialism doesn't work, ever. The slacker doesn't make a car, pretty soon there are no cars made. Alright, to continue, higher crime and higher taxes started showing up as a result of lower standards for the gentry. And as a result of agitating minorities with social justice crap. The managers started moving out of town where things were safer and cheaper. So-called white flight because of racism, the history textbooks tell you. But actually the harder working blacks also skipped town. All of this leads to a tax money loss. The state wants this money, so they start crazy tax stuff, basically pulling from anything they can. Meanwhile, Detroit lacking its money and steadily draining from the town starts to implode. They shut down plants and start to outsource. The town goes under. Nowadays, Michigan and Detroit area especially is so bureaucratic with stste regulation, so desperate for money, and so messed up that they actually had to fire their horse handler in a town with no horses, basically the guy has the position just to collect money.

    Or the short version. AOC's New Green Deal plans for taxing the rich 70%. I dunno tax math but suppose I were making $100,001 making me above the threshold. $70000 tax! I now make only $30k. I am working very hard and then get paid almost like a factory worker. No matter how much I make, 70% will cause one to quit within one year.

    The Christians say a tithe. This is because asking more than 10% is unethical. And I don't believe on should pay income tax at all. Giving shoypuld be voluntarily done.
     
  6. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,742
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Have fun with a government that has no money, then.
     
  7. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,742
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Heh, that's the first time that I've heard someone use Detroit as an example of the "failure" of socialism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,536
    Ratings:
    +11,971
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    As one who has lived in this area almost all my life, the above simply is not true.

    What killed Detroit economically was a combination of factors, including automation in production, relatively high wages, high legacy costs, outsourcing jobs, the riot that cause "white flight" into the suburbs, etc. And also let me remind you that the state has been dominated by Republicans in congress and that we've had numerous Republican governors.

    I paid my way through college working for the Big Three, so I saw the changes taking place there, especially large-scale layoffs caused by automating the assembly lines and outsourcing jobs. At a Chrysler plant I worked at in 1966, we had 2000+ working in final assembly, but when I visited a G.M. assembly plant 20 years later, there were only 300+ in final assembly.

    In the 1950's and 60's, the Detroit area was the single wealthiest metropolitan area of any big city in the U.S., but those cuts I mentioned above very much hurt the city, thus leading to many more problems.
     
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,536
    Ratings:
    +11,971
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    How about Cuba under Batista? Was he a "socialist" as well? Why do you think he was removed in what actually was a quite popular revolution there and even here-- until Castro announced that he was a Marxist?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein ᛘᛁᛏᚾᛁᚴᚼᛏ᛫ᛋᚢᚾ
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    27,897
    Ratings:
    +13,412
    Religion:
    Germanic Folk Revival
    Makes more sense than mainstream Christianity.
     
  11. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,536
    Ratings:
    +11,971
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    "Nice" stereotype. Did you actually know any? I did.

    Maybe if I was better looking I would have gotten into free love. :cool:
     
  12. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    148,266
    Ratings:
    +41,393
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    If you really paid attention, you'd have noticed that we've had many Democrats too.
    This was particularly so in Detroit.
    Ever heard of John Dingell?
    John Dingell Sr?
    Lots'o Democrats.
     
  13. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    667
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Follower (and Writer) of the Mune Shinri
    You don't understand me. I'm a libertarian minimist. I believe government should close its borders so nobody takes them over. After that, it's fine if it ceases to exist.

    But since it does exist "government governs best that governs least." It's actually actually possible to fund the government just one tarriffs and other taxes. The US government actually operated like this until about 1915.
    Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government -- Devvy Kidd
    If however you decided to retain income tax, you must do it in such a way that the rich are not actively trying to hide their own wealth. If you taxed the poor a certain percent, and they started fudging their numbers to hide their money (this happens with waitresses and tips btw, because what is a gift is treated like income). So why do think it happens with high property taxes? People try to have someone else technically own the property and just pay rent. Or whatever loopholes thet can find. Same for income tax. Rather than funding the government more, it just creates civil unrest.

    In a kid's story of all things, Jack and the Beanstalk, they explain why socialism doesn't work. The kid steals a goose who lays the golden egg. Perfectly fine if a government wants money to hace a gift that keeps on giving. But I think in some version his mother cuts open the goose, either to cook it or to get all the eggs. The thing is, a patient government that doesn't raid everything suddenly becomes rich not poorer. I make $10k in a small business as an example (I actually don't make even that, and we're showing you the law as "what if everyone did that"). Government decides they haven't enough money from the rich anymore, so they're extending the 70% tax to the poor. Next year, because $7000 of my $10k was taken, my business folds. Government has no money to collect because I have no income. Now, lemme tell you why 10% not only DOES fund government but makes a killing. If I also have no property tax, of $10k, $9k is mine, $1k is yours. In 7 years you will have my $7k, in 21 years you'll have 3 times that! And this is per citizen because even the rich will suddenly stop hiding wealth. But we're assuming income stays the same! My small business wirh $9k could advertise and suddenly be a $50k company. The next year with these savings, they could become a $100k company. High income tax hinders businesses.

    Machiavelli states that a prince should avoid being hated (yes, I know everyone's read the "better to be feared than loved part" but this is another chapter), and thet can easily avoid this but not being rapacious and leaving alone one's property and their wife alone. That is, you get too greedy, ppl revolt and you get nothing!
     
  14. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    667
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Follower (and Writer) of the Mune Shinri
    Socialists think they understand economics but they actually don't understand anything. Because economics is ultimately about people. Expecting people to be unselfish is not only unrealistic but short-sighted.

    The church understood that while some people could be convinced out of their own charity to give all they have for a cause, they can't be forced to do it. This is why we have tithe. 10%. And only to those who become members.

    Yes, it would be nice if we all got "justice" through economy. But that isn't justice, it's payback for perceived wrongs. And "judge not lest you be judged". If you start becoming rich and oppressing others, we have what TvTropes calls a "full-circle revolution" .

    Stability comes when institutions follow the path of the church. That means a tithe with no taking of property.
     
  15. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,742
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    >mfw socialism is disproved by a children's story
     
  16. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,742
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Tell that to the capitalists who privatize basic human rights.
     
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    148,266
    Ratings:
    +41,393
    Religion:
    Bokononism
  18. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    148,266
    Ratings:
    +41,393
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    To privatize is better than to eliminate.
     
  19. Woberts

    Woberts The Perfumed Seneschal

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,742
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Religion:
    Terminus Est.
    Privatization is elimination except for the wealthy.
    (Let's ignore the advances in human rights made by communist countries, eh?)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    148,266
    Ratings:
    +41,393
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Aye, systematic mass starvations & killings (by governmental policy) were
    elevated to the most sophisticated & successful level in the PRC & USSR.
    The west has still yet to catch up with them.
    Thinking of people I've known who immigrated here, the ones from commie
    countries (USSR, PRC) considered their emigration an "escape".
    They had great problem with those "advances in human rights".

    Basic human rights do appear to be better in non-commie/socialist countries.
    I could do well in many western capitalist countries, eg, USA, Canuckistan,
    Finland. But N Korea, PRC, Cuba, Venezuela, & the old USSR...not so much.
     
    #20 Revoltingest, Feb 26, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
Loading...