Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
it’s only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you’re a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
That’s the root of the problem you blame on corporations.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
I’m not sure what the “world freedom index” is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind, but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs, corporate control, etc.
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
When I say “secularism”, I’m referring to the social trend of reduced church membership
I don’t want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn’t anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don’t believe in Satan either.
It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation.
I’ll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law. Only the constitution is the head of american law and it doesn’t say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don’t even recognize if you’re an atheist.
I’ve spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Reply to “regardless of government size”, part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you’re a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
A couple of problems that make this incorrect:
A nit-pick that I find distracting: The phrase “the Fed” always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know that’s not what you meant.
I don’t think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be. There were no taxes to fund anything, aside from nominal excise taxes on imports. There were no agencies, at all — none. That’s our natural federal government size. They barely had any power at all, because American government is meant to be bottom-up, with families and townships having the most power, and the federal government the least.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people’s liberty, any more than they’re incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Except lobbying isn’t bribery. It’s just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.
The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:
The Interstate Commerce Clause
The Necessary and Proper Clause
Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don’t all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people’s liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind,
Agreed!
but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs,
Agreed!
corporate control
No!
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
I don’t think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be.
It basically didn’t exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
That’s our natural federal government size.
When you say “natural” here I assume you mean that the country was intended to always have the same size of federal government (which is to say basically a size of nothing). However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better. I agree that the federal government needs to be smaller (for instance I would personally cut the IRS to a 10th it’s size, because that’s all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesn’t mean it should barely exist. When our country was founded, it was done so with the Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people’s liberty, any more than they’re incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
Except lobbying isn’t bribery. It’s just speech, similar to advertising.
If that’s all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but that’s not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It’s also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem, corporate control. You say it is the two above doctrines, I disagree, believing it is a multifaceted problem of lobbying, monopolies, laizze-faire policy, etc.
I simply don’t see how removing the government’s ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america. Corporations would still control our wages, place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better.
That’s progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, they’d be rallying the militia.
Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. In retrospect it’s clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal government’s only problem then was they couldn’t get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. What’s more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I don’t deny the fact that the Constitution is well accepted by almost 100% of American citizens, but the least we can do is restore it to its original intent. If we ever do, though, then you’ll find me advocating to restore the Articles.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny. You can lobby your governor just as you can lobby your next-door neighbor, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as you’re sorta doing now.
Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It’s also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, there’s no sense in spending money to help them.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem,
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track in this sort of enormous conversation.
I simply don’t see how removing the government’s ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america.
Let’s distinguish between state and federal control. I believe it’s a sovereign state’s role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
Corporations would still control our wages
I’ve already addressed this. It’s false. When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price. Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
This is all radically disconnected from reality. Corporations don’t control any of these things. You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
That’s progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not [intend for the country to change].
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay’s rebellion, the nation’s debts weren’t being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it’s blockade (which couldn’t be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny.
You have no evidence for this, let alone causation.
When politicians have next to no power, there’s no sense in spending money to help them.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can. So there will always be motivation to spend money to bribe them regardless of the power they hold. They might spend less, sure, but they will still do it.
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track
Same. It’s incredibly difficult.
I believe it’s a sovereign state’s role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say? If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn’t exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that. Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
* I am aware this is less so for higher skill jobs, but most jobs you have very little power in this regard.
Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
If I were to start a business it would be a small one and therefore have no control. But again, the problem generally isn’t small businesses, it’s the big ones.
They do control each of these things, and I can explain how:
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that’s just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you’re exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you’d never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you’ll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldn’t have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay’s rebellion, the nation’s debts weren’t being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it’s blockade (which couldn’t be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I don’t think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place. But indeed they did, and honestly I’d be okay with it if we’d just stick to their original design.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. That’s basically what the Constitution’s all about.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales. And they gain sales by offering goods and services that people want more than their own money. It’s not having power over someone to sell them something they love.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say?
Affirmative.
If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
States make agreements with their neighbors, much like reciprocity for CCW licenses. Indeed the whole Union is meant to pretty much be a coalition, so if South America were to invade Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, for instance, the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border. If Oregon legalized marijuana and Idaho didn’t (to use a real-life example of bordering states), then LEOs in Idaho can look a bit more suspiciously at people with Oregon plates, and possibly pull them over and see what they smell. A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct “random” searches.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn’t exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They wouldn’t have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
They definitely didn’t intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
I don’t think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place
The alternative was British control. I very much doubt they would have kept the Articles if they knew.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales.
And power equals sales, so by seeking sales they also seek power.
the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border.
Under the articles, it was like pulling teeth simply for the money to pay back the nation’s loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct “random” searches.
And that would be a huge disservice to the country. Our nation thrives on the ability to quickly and easily cross state borders because they basically don’t exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
But reality is like that.
I’m not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business’ size. It also doesn’t take into account the power/influence a company has, or it’s market share. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city’s housing.
And because of supply and demand the reality is that the power is not in the hands of labor (for now), and the internet does exist.
Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, you’ll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. You’ll get much better pay as a garbage man, since fewer people like the thought of taking that job. But as individuals, we can choose whatever kind of job we want to work, balancing our skills and aptitudes with our personal tastes and how much we value monetary remuneration compared to other measures of job satisfaction. And if you’re clever, you can figure out how to spend all day in the forest and make well over $100k (start a logging company).
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
Depends on the type of work. Personally I don’t care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if you’re a gas station attendant then you’d better show up before the start of your shift.
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that’s just one example.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesn’t understand that you’re productive working from home, then the job’s a bad match for you and you should find a better match. That’s not anyone having control over the other party; it’s just conflicting values.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you’re exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
I’ve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everything’s on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
Again, this is very much dependent on the kind of job. Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you’d never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldn’t want a business to be democratic any more than we’d want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. It’s a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses aren’t democratic.
If you’ve ever tried to hire a CEO (and it’s obvious you haven’t), you’d know it’s extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. There’s almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, you’re taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, I’m lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed. You get a paycheck or direct deposit. Some businesses pay cash. A few will pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. You don’t seem to be discussing any of these things, but they’re how money is distributed.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you’ll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Yes, well that’s true if we’re only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But that’s not evidence that companies seek power over people. It’s just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while that’s not true of all journalists, they’ve banded together with like-minded people.
Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives, which is a very real problem with examples far too numerous to count (Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click “not spam”?), that’s not corporations trying to control people. It’s just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe they’re making the world a better place.
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price.
Agreed. And with today’s huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybody’s wages. The internet only makes it worse with how easy it is to apply to hundreds of jobs.
The end result is that the average person has no control over wages.
Personally I don’t care when people work
And that’s you, which is great. But most places aren’t like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
That’s not anyone having control over the other party
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
Everything’s on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
You can’t have negotiation without leverage, and you can’t have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So I’ll move on.
we wouldn’t want a business to be democratic any more than we’d want our country to be.
You might not want our country to be democratic, but the vast majority of people do.
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper.
A democracy is the way in which the social contract is maintained. The alternative is the wolves just slaughtering the lambs. In reality, there are 10 lambs for every one wolf.
it’s extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well
That’s because today’s corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldn’t be a problem.
I’m lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed.
I’m talking about the percentage cut of what each person gets, and how CEOs get overpaid.
Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click “not spam”?)
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it trigger’s your email host’s spam filters. It’s often a case of quantity instead of content. Either that or a really stupid bug. The whole field of tech is littered with them.
Reply to “regardless of government size”, part 2 of 2:
I don’t want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn’t anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people “seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.” The article also notes that:
The term “secularism” has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
That’s awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don’t believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesn’t exist. You’re in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
You’re either with God or you’re against Him. That’s a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you’re unaware that you’re doing so — and even if you think that’s impossible — that’s what you’re doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I’ll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…which I rebutted. I wonder if you’re missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law.
It’s the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I can’t overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
I’ve spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (“Neither” would be an invalid answer.)
That’s awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I don’t think they match, but again definitions aren’t really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesn’t exist. You’re in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say “complete denial”, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
That’s a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
That’s because I don’t think it makes sense. I don’t believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it’s kind of like asking “are you rooting for team A or team B”, but the sports teams* that you’re talking about are all fictional. It just doesn’t make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they aren’t sports teams, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you’re unaware that you’re doing so — and even if you think that’s impossible — that’s what you’re doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
I’m embracing neither. I can’t embrace something I don’t believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you don’t think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren’t good reasons.
It’s the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I can’t overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (“Neither” would be an invalid answer.)
I’m sorry but the answer is “neither” whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to “christian logic” so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
definitions aren’t really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking we’re arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but we’re using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say “complete denial”, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying?
I have no background in psychology, but I don’t think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didn’t get far. Sorry. But no, I don’t pretend to know what you really know and what you don’t. That’s between you and God, not me. I just think you’ve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I don’t believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it’s kind of like asking “are you rooting for team A or team B”, but the sports teams* that you’re talking about are all fictional. It just doesn’t make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
That’s a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it’s absurd to pretend they’re not. You’re ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. You’re denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending you’re somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God’s blessing, and what’s far worse is you’re arrogantly pretending you’re somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. That’s why I say you’re in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
—Verbal Kint
I’m embracing neither. I can’t embrace something I don’t believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you don’t think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren’t good reasons.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all — that’s what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, you’re then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I’d say that’s reasonable if I wasn’t familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
It’s worth noting, though, that you mention that we’re a 246 year old country, and it’s 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly I’d say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn’t be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word “yeet” was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an “objective” answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don’t see much point in talking about it.
That’s between you and God, not me. I just think you’ve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesn’t make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it’s absurd to pretend they’re not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but that’s not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren’t literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil don’t exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isn’t anything physical or some being, it’s a human label.
You’re denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
You arrogantly pretending you’re somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God’s blessing
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it’s very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don’t need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
you’re somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I can’t say I am smarter than something I don’t believe exists.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all
And therefore I want none of it.
So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
and it’s 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn’t be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
I’d rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but I’ll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an “objective” answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don’t see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, you’ll get a hundred different definitions. Sure they’ll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other side’s. I suspect that’s what you’re observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. It’s all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And what’s more, I’d say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course it’s a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren’t literal entities that exist.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word “photosynthesis” describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison d’être is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what I’ve written comes down to that. To my view, it’s crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. It’s destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it’s very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don’t need to be to discover such flaws.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we don’t understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw God’s handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where we’ve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is what we’ve built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, it’s probable you’re evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
You’re fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven’t had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect that’s what you’re observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word “secularists/secularism”, and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of “christian”, and the same applies to secularists.
I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
But where do you think the two human concepts came from?
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
So it seems we are in agreement that “good” and “evil” exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
“But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it’s absurd to pretend they’re not.”
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to “burn the house down” as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today?
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that’s a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isn’t a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, I’ll leave you with this:
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
If you see a mistake, it’s probable you’re evaluating an illusion.
That’s a very broad generalization.
You’re fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven’t had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven’t had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what’s your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem that’s eloquently explained in Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. I’m curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of “christian”, and the same applies to secularists.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word “secularism” has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If you’re aware of a more appropriate word, I’m all ears.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. It’s a choice, through and through.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to “burn the house down” as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. There’s nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So I’m sorry if I twisted your “try to salvage the house, or replace it if necessary” with “burn the house down”, but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
I don’t know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesn’t exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we don’t know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. What’s crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. It’s created by God to work in a certain way, and we’ve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that’s a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If you’re right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then that’s reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God’s glory, so it doesn’t seem like a very compelling answer.
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of God’s creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven’t had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what’s your ELO if you have one?
I don’t. Back when I played regularly, I didn’t care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamy’s response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesn’t understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end it’s culture war bullshit.
If you’re aware of a more appropriate word, I’m all ears.
“The decline of christianity”
Every time I look to Christ for guidance
Even if we have free will that isn’t an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
If you’re going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
There’s nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
If we don’t know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct.
That’s a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasn’t Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering “god” in that context was wrong. We shouldn’t just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
It’s created by God to work in a certain way, and we’ve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God’s glory, so it doesn’t seem like a very compelling answer.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God.
Not only is that not true (because you added the “most intelligent” qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
Einstein is the most notable example.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So that’s not really much of an argument.
I would now if I picked it back up.
Go for it! It’s pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you’re a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind, but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs, corporate control, etc.
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
I don’t want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn’t anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don’t believe in Satan either.
I’ll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law. Only the constitution is the head of american law and it doesn’t say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
I’ve spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Reply to “regardless of government size”, part 1 of 2:
A couple of problems that make this incorrect:
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people’s liberty, any more than they’re incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
Except lobbying isn’t bribery. It’s just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.
The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:
Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.
Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don’t all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people’s liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.
Agreed!
Agreed!
No!
Agreed!
It basically didn’t exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
When you say “natural” here I assume you mean that the country was intended to always have the same size of federal government (which is to say basically a size of nothing). However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better. I agree that the federal government needs to be smaller (for instance I would personally cut the IRS to a 10th it’s size, because that’s all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesn’t mean it should barely exist. When our country was founded, it was done so with the Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
If that’s all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but that’s not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It’s also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem, corporate control. You say it is the two above doctrines, I disagree, believing it is a multifaceted problem of lobbying, monopolies, laizze-faire policy, etc.
I simply don’t see how removing the government’s ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america. Corporations would still control our wages, place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
That’s progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, they’d be rallying the militia.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. In retrospect it’s clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal government’s only problem then was they couldn’t get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. What’s more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I don’t deny the fact that the Constitution is well accepted by almost 100% of American citizens, but the least we can do is restore it to its original intent. If we ever do, though, then you’ll find me advocating to restore the Articles.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny. You can lobby your governor just as you can lobby your next-door neighbor, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as you’re sorta doing now.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, there’s no sense in spending money to help them.
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track in this sort of enormous conversation.
Let’s distinguish between state and federal control. I believe it’s a sovereign state’s role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
I’ve already addressed this. It’s false. When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price. Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
This is all radically disconnected from reality. Corporations don’t control any of these things. You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay’s rebellion, the nation’s debts weren’t being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it’s blockade (which couldn’t be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
You have no evidence for this, let alone causation.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can. So there will always be motivation to spend money to bribe them regardless of the power they hold. They might spend less, sure, but they will still do it.
Same. It’s incredibly difficult.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say? If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn’t exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that. Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
* I am aware this is less so for higher skill jobs, but most jobs you have very little power in this regard.
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
If I were to start a business it would be a small one and therefore have no control. But again, the problem generally isn’t small businesses, it’s the big ones.
They do control each of these things, and I can explain how:
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that’s just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you’re exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you’d never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you’ll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Reply to “built a system”, part 1 of 2:
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldn’t have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I don’t think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place. But indeed they did, and honestly I’d be okay with it if we’d just stick to their original design.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. That’s basically what the Constitution’s all about.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales. And they gain sales by offering goods and services that people want more than their own money. It’s not having power over someone to sell them something they love.
Affirmative.
States make agreements with their neighbors, much like reciprocity for CCW licenses. Indeed the whole Union is meant to pretty much be a coalition, so if South America were to invade Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, for instance, the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border. If Oregon legalized marijuana and Idaho didn’t (to use a real-life example of bordering states), then LEOs in Idaho can look a bit more suspiciously at people with Oregon plates, and possibly pull them over and see what they smell. A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct “random” searches.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They definitely didn’t intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
The alternative was British control. I very much doubt they would have kept the Articles if they knew.
And power equals sales, so by seeking sales they also seek power.
Under the articles, it was like pulling teeth simply for the money to pay back the nation’s loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
And that would be a huge disservice to the country. Our nation thrives on the ability to quickly and easily cross state borders because they basically don’t exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
I’m not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business’ size. It also doesn’t take into account the power/influence a company has, or it’s market share. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city’s housing.
And because of supply and demand the reality is that the power is not in the hands of labor (for now), and the internet does exist.
Reply to “built a system”, part 2 of 2:
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, you’ll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. You’ll get much better pay as a garbage man, since fewer people like the thought of taking that job. But as individuals, we can choose whatever kind of job we want to work, balancing our skills and aptitudes with our personal tastes and how much we value monetary remuneration compared to other measures of job satisfaction. And if you’re clever, you can figure out how to spend all day in the forest and make well over $100k (start a logging company).
Depends on the type of work. Personally I don’t care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if you’re a gas station attendant then you’d better show up before the start of your shift.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesn’t understand that you’re productive working from home, then the job’s a bad match for you and you should find a better match. That’s not anyone having control over the other party; it’s just conflicting values.
I’ve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everything’s on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
Again, this is very much dependent on the kind of job. Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldn’t want a business to be democratic any more than we’d want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. It’s a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses aren’t democratic.
If you’ve ever tried to hire a CEO (and it’s obvious you haven’t), you’d know it’s extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. There’s almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, you’re taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, I’m lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed. You get a paycheck or direct deposit. Some businesses pay cash. A few will pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. You don’t seem to be discussing any of these things, but they’re how money is distributed.
Yes, well that’s true if we’re only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But that’s not evidence that companies seek power over people. It’s just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while that’s not true of all journalists, they’ve banded together with like-minded people.
Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives, which is a very real problem with examples far too numerous to count (Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click “not spam”?), that’s not corporations trying to control people. It’s just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe they’re making the world a better place.
Agreed. And with today’s huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybody’s wages. The internet only makes it worse with how easy it is to apply to hundreds of jobs.
The end result is that the average person has no control over wages.
And that’s you, which is great. But most places aren’t like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control
I’m more or less using definition 1a
You can’t have negotiation without leverage, and you can’t have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So I’ll move on.
You might not want our country to be democratic, but the vast majority of people do.
A democracy is the way in which the social contract is maintained. The alternative is the wolves just slaughtering the lambs. In reality, there are 10 lambs for every one wolf.
That’s because today’s corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldn’t be a problem.
I’m talking about the percentage cut of what each person gets, and how CEOs get overpaid.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
It absolutely is. If you control what media people consume, you control what they think, and that is power.
Here is an example of the Sinclair stations using that power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
I’ll leave you with this:
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/918520692/facebook-keeps-data-secret-letting-conservative-bias-claims-persist
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it trigger’s your email host’s spam filters. It’s often a case of quantity instead of content. Either that or a really stupid bug. The whole field of tech is littered with them.
Reply to “regardless of government size”, part 2 of 2:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people “seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.” The article also notes that:
That’s awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I know you believe Satan doesn’t exist. You’re in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
You’re either with God or you’re against Him. That’s a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you’re unaware that you’re doing so — and even if you think that’s impossible — that’s what you’re doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
…which I rebutted. I wonder if you’re missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
It’s the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I can’t overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (“Neither” would be an invalid answer.)
I don’t think they match, but again definitions aren’t really why I am here, so I will move on.
When you say “complete denial”, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
That’s because I don’t think it makes sense. I don’t believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it’s kind of like asking “are you rooting for team A or team B”, but the sports teams* that you’re talking about are all fictional. It just doesn’t make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they aren’t sports teams, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy.
I’m embracing neither. I can’t embrace something I don’t believe in.
I know you don’t think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren’t good reasons.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
I’m sorry but the answer is “neither” whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to “christian logic” so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking we’re arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but we’re using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
I have no background in psychology, but I don’t think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didn’t get far. Sorry. But no, I don’t pretend to know what you really know and what you don’t. That’s between you and God, not me. I just think you’ve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
That’s a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it’s absurd to pretend they’re not. You’re ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. You’re denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending you’re somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God’s blessing, and what’s far worse is you’re arrogantly pretending you’re somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. That’s why I say you’re in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
—Verbal Kint
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all — that’s what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, you’re then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
I’d say that’s reasonable if I wasn’t familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
It’s worth noting, though, that you mention that we’re a 246 year old country, and it’s 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly I’d say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn’t be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word “yeet” was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an “objective” answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don’t see much point in talking about it.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesn’t make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but that’s not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren’t literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil don’t exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isn’t anything physical or some being, it’s a human label.
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it’s very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don’t need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
I can’t say I am smarter than something I don’t believe exists.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
And therefore I want none of it.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
I’d rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but I’ll say I am from the north east coast.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, you’ll get a hundred different definitions. Sure they’ll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other side’s. I suspect that’s what you’re observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. It’s all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And what’s more, I’d say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course it’s a choice, and you choose too.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word “photosynthesis” describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison d’être is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what I’ve written comes down to that. To my view, it’s crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. It’s destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we don’t understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw God’s handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where we’ve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is what we’ve built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, it’s probable you’re evaluating an illusion.
You’re fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven’t had one in ages. I miss playing it.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word “secularists/secularism”, and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of “christian”, and the same applies to secularists.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
So it seems we are in agreement that “good” and “evil” exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to “burn the house down” as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that’s a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isn’t a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, I’ll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOc8ASeHYNw
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
That’s a very broad generalization.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven’t had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what’s your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem that’s eloquently explained in Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. I’m curious to hear your perspective on that.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word “secularism” has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If you’re aware of a more appropriate word, I’m all ears.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. It’s a choice, through and through.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. There’s nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So I’m sorry if I twisted your “try to salvage the house, or replace it if necessary” with “burn the house down”, but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
I don’t know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesn’t exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we don’t know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. What’s crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. It’s created by God to work in a certain way, and we’ve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
If you’re right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then that’s reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God’s glory, so it doesn’t seem like a very compelling answer.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of God’s creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I don’t. Back when I played regularly, I didn’t care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamy’s response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesn’t understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end it’s culture war bullshit.
“The decline of christianity”
Even if we have free will that isn’t an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_civilization
If you’re going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
That’s a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasn’t Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering “god” in that context was wrong. We shouldn’t just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
Not only is that not true (because you added the “most intelligent” qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So that’s not really much of an argument.
Go for it! It’s pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.