Displaying 1 - 10 of 15 Forum Posts1 2 Next
  • Jul 21, 2011 05:34 PM
    Last: 6yr
    Wow. Very glad that khadro has joined this thread. I had never before looked into the 'Dominionist' philosophy (in fact I had never even heard the term before) and I am researching this right now.  Very, very interesting (especially to me as a self-professed Christian).  

    May I beg the participants in this blog to give me a few more days to prepare? In the meantime I'd again like to thank you for introducing me to a new avenue of thought!
  • Aug 01, 2011 02:36 AM
    Last: 10yr
    Just a quick elaboration: 

    It is not always proper to defend someone who 'sticks to their guns' in all cases. When a person's beliefs, based on empirical evidence, are shown to be in error, and that person then kicks in their heels as if to say "Damn it! That's what I've always believed and I'm sticking to it!", then that's a sign of immaturity and selfish delusion.

    But, keep in mind, it is not the steadfastness in one's beliefs that is the culprit here; it's the failure to admit error and, as a result, to knowingly perpetuate a falsehood.
  • Jul 21, 2011 05:34 PM
    Last: 6yr

    I would like to reply to your post right now but it’s getting near my bedtime (I really am becoming an old coot) and I want to give my reply some needed thought. 

    Let me state right from the outset that my opinions here will be based on my Christian beliefs so they may be ‘tinged’ from the get-go as far as you or others may be concerned; but hey, they are my opinions and I promise you that they will at least be as honest and forthright as I can make them. 

    And, an exchange of different ideas is what makes these posts valuable anyway, right? Preaching to the choir, although providing a sometimes necessary moral reinforcement or ego stroke, can also become boring and non-productive.
  • Aug 01, 2011 02:36 AM
    Last: 10yr
    Oh, to find a real, honest and uncompromising politician! But maybe that's the real problem: we do not need 'politicians'; we need statesmen.

    We all make mistakes; we all can modify our positions based on new understandings or the recognition of new facts and evidence, but to blatently obfuscate, manipulate and deliberately coverup and run from one's prior beliefs, with a supposed polictical gain as the motivation, is dreadful, and to me, an immediate disqualification for further trust and support.
    If you believe something, say so! If you do not believe it, say that as well. I trust a man with contrary opinions, who truly believes in them, far more than the man who holds my opinions for no other reason than to curry my favor.

    Be a man and don't let your beliefs wave in the wind. Shame on you Mr Gingrich!
  • May 24, 2010 01:59 PM
    Last: 9yr
    You said: “I think when people are willing to accept third world wages w/little or no purchasing power for entry level employment, a reasonable person would conclude that several genuine conditions of voluntarism are suspect.”
    Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here but: I would venture to say that most people seeking employment are not, in a sense, ‘volunteering’ to do so; I know you’re using that term in relation to the term ‘mutual consent’ but there is a subtle difference. In the scenario we’re discussing here, I think the terms ‘acceptance’, ‘consent’ or ‘acquiescence’ describe the situation more accurately.  I would definitely ‘volunteer’ for a job offer that paid $10 an hour; I ‘accept’ or ‘consent’ (perhaps grudgingly) to the true job offer of only $3 an hour. Regardless, let me continue…
    You said: “It is highly likely that the vast majority of those willing to work for less than minimum wage are either motivated bydestitute socio-economic circumstances, or they're being overtly coerced, or manipulated for lack of market information (which could be the result of cognitive deficiencies).”
    Well, what if a person IS facing desperate socio-economic circumstances? Is it better for this person to not work at all or is it better for him and society that he be allowed to contribute at least some small measure of productivity? Remember my first post when I described a gas station owner contemplating the hiring of a low-level employee to sweep the shop? What if he couldn’t afford to pay $7+ dollars an hour for this employee but could pay $3. Why should the ‘volunteering’ employee be legally denied this opportunity to work and why should society be denied his productivity? I would dare say in many circumstances, this ‘protected’ prospective employee would be quite happy (sarcasm here) to know that others, deciding and weighing the alternatives in his stead, have ruled that his talents and abilities make him legally un-employable even though he desperately wants that job.
    As far as being ‘overtly coerced’, do you really mean ‘covertly’? Any overt coercion (such as blackmail or physical threats) would, of course, be illegal and rightly so. And overt coercion is, I believe, the same as being in a desperate financial situation (which I have already commented on).
    Manipulated for lack of market information’ is an interesting argument and I notice that you add the term ‘…the result of cognitive deficiencies..’ to explain why this argument might hold weight. You used the term ‘reasonable person’ earlier. I think you know as well 
    as I do that we are expected, each one of us, to be responsible, forward-looking sentient beings. There are, of course, some, who through no fault of their own, find themselves on the short end of the intelligence stick. But they, hopefully, have friends, family and others that are more than willing to help them.
    You said: “Now, what's morally to prevent someone from capitalizing on the misfortune of others? More specifically, does it cause harm to offer below minimum wage employment to individuals seeking work to put food on the table? Well.... yes. It's entirely oppressive to perpetuate human misery.”
    Interesting. The questionNow, what's morally to prevent someone from capitalizing on the misfortune of others?” The short answer to that is: everything. I can’t think of even one society where this is acceptable from a moral standpoint. However, if we look at it from a legal rather than moral standpoint, the question becomes more germane:
    Is it moral, to legally require someone to be moral? Or, stated differently, is it moral to legislate morality? I believe the answer to that question is that you can try but doing so carries with it troubles of its own.
    Finally, I’d just like to say that you and I have been debating this topic almost always from the viewpoint of the employee; there is, of course, the other main player: the employer. I’ve mentioned him a few times but only in passing. We see the effects of the Minimum Wage immediately because the money spent to procure that employee is immediately visible. What we don’t see is the money that could have been spent by the employer on other uses had he not been forced to pay higher wages than he really wanted to. I’d like to expand on this but this post has already gotten quite long. Maybe next time.
  • Aug 05, 2011 08:27 PM
    Last: 10yr
    You said: Even on the gold standard, government ran deficits. That's how the bond market was invented, as a way around the physical limitations of the gold standard.
    Exactly. The gold standard’s main claim to fame (when speaking of a governments obligation to create and maintain an honest, dependable money supply) is to thwart the tendencies of govt to debase and dilute the integrity of that money. 
    You said: Limiting new money creation to the rate of new discoveries of gold & silver is, frankly, absurd.
    With all due respect, this statement itself is absurd. Tell me, is there any reason at all to think that a currency based on precious metals is tied, physically, to the amount of metals? If absolutely no gold was discovered after returning to a gold standard and the economic activity of the nation expanded (more goods; cheaper goods; etc), why wouldn’t the value of the gold simply increase? Congress has the constitutional power to set the value of gold in relation to the currency outstanding. In this scenario, what used to cost $10 (in gold) now only requires $8 (in re-valued gold). True, the person who bought whatever at $10, now finds that what he paid for is, in terms of the new value, overpriced, but this situation occurs even with fiat money. The computer I bought 2 years ago now sells for half of what it used to. Unfortunately, with the govt’s ability to inflate, ad-infintum, the currency supply of paper currency, most goods and services have increased in dollar-based price (I believe the dollar itself has lost over 94% of its purchasing power just within the last 25 years; I’ll have to check the exact statistic and will post it as soon as I do).
    You said: Why should the spending habits of the owners of gold & silver mines dictate the terms of the size of the monetary base?
    What? The ‘spending habits of the owners of gold and silver mines?’. Are you serious? First of all, when the govt issues currency based on a gold (or silver standard), they would only be allowed to issue these notes in relation to the amount of metal holdings they currently had on hand (stored in Fort Knox?) NOT the amount of metals circulating in private hands. Secondly, as stated above, the actual physical amount of precious metals does NOT dictate it’s value (unless, of course, someone figures out how to turn sand into gold and the very abundance of the metal would now make it an unsuitable commodity for using as money).
    You said: Money is just a medium of exchange.
    I agree with this completely. So, money is NOT wealth. Wealth is productivity. When more goods and services are produced the wealth of the nation goes up. An honest money supply exists solely to facilitate the exchange of these goods and services in an equitable fashion. And what commodity intrinsically makes a good money supply? Consider these criteria:
    It must be rare.
    It must be durable.
    It must be divisible.
    It must maintain a store of value over long periods of time.
    When any commodity, whatever it might be, meets these criteria, it can be used as basis for a stable money supply. Over history, what commodity has been found that fulfills all of these traits?
    Many other types of commodities have been used throughout history as money. Tobacco, seashells, cattle, etc. Each of these commodities failed, in the long run, to continue on as a stable form of money. Tobacco rots, seashells were not rare enough, cattle was not easily divisible, and so on. Over the history of human economics, people realized that precious metals met all the base criteria for a stable and effective money supply. Honest govts simply recognized this fact and used precious metals as a universally accepted commodity for money. And, tellingly, this acceptance of precious metals as money continues on to this very day.
    You said: Under a gold standard, the only way to expand the money supply is to debase the value of currency.
    Only in relation to the value of the gold backing it up. As stated earlier, the value of the gold increases; another way is if more gold is mined and processed (but not too much as the rarity of gold is one of its primary virtues). Less (redeemable) currency buys more gold; the wealth of the nation has increased because this reflects an increase in productivity.
    You said: The problem is, under a gold standard, people get wise to the scheme and start demanding gold for their dollars. When government devalues the currency with respect to a metal backing it, those left holding currency are on the short end of the stick. And when there is a run on the gold window....you end up with fiscal constraints...that limit the amount of new money growth...and thus threaten the government's and private sector's ability to pay debts.
    Hmmm. “Wise to the scheme…”. Your wording here implies some sort of con game is being perpetrated. In actuality, there’s honesty in these types of transactions. Since paper currency (the ‘dollars’ you talk about) are really just ‘money substitutes’, a promise to pay the real money; the real money is the gold and silver), how is redeeming your currency anything more than demanding payment for what is yours? As long as the govt honors its obligation to redeem the dollars in gold (and each and every dollar issued should have gold backing it up), how is this a ‘scheme’?

    PS: I very much appreciated your message; My oh my: a True Capitalist! You know, I truly believe that you are; just your willingness to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful debate shows you are different than most progressives who refuse to give any reflective thought whatsoever on their beliefs. I have always felt that most people (except those with true agendas) armed with the truth and facts would fall somewhere much closer within the 'libertarian' mindset than they would initially believe. There are always minor differences in legal thought, of course (especially in the areas of vice (drugs, prostitution, etc), but on a whole, I believe we are all much closer than our true enemies think (and I truly believe that fact scares them so they need us to fight amongst ourselves). Later, perhaps, we can talk about 'socialism' and I'll have a chance to explain why I think it's a shiny bauble filled with poison.
  • Aug 05, 2011 08:27 PM
    Last: 10yr

    The Tea Party's goal of reducing govt debt and encouraging fiscal responsibility and individual freedom is an 'immature attitude toward
    governance'?  I'm curious; what specifically does the Tea Party promote that is, in your opinion, a 'careless disregard for America?'.

    As I understand them, the Tea Party's main goal is a return to the doctrines of limited govt as a means of encouraging economic stability and progress; Your statement that their goal is to 'make Obama fail' is unfair; rather, it is, as I see it, their goal to defeat the agenda of Obama and that is simply a refutation of his socialistic principles, not, as you infer, a direct attack on the man himself.

  • Aug 05, 2011 08:27 PM
    Last: 10yr


    1. Actually, the removal of precious metal backing from US currency began farther back; remember Roosevelt's 1933 edict making gold
    ownership illegal? And by that time, the Fed had already began removing the dollars convertibility by reducing the reserve requirements
    originally placed into the Reserve Act's original charter. And so you're right (and I should have made this clear), we have had
    true fiat status for many years now. All of our currency is redeemable in nothing but more irredeemable paper. And just because the
    other nations of the world have also been victims of the ruling govts theft of their public money, you think that's OK then for us? Do
    you actually endorse and support the use of fiat money? When you say 'for good reason', please tell me what you believe those good reasons are so we can discuss them.

    2. "Magic Mushroom" free market?  Why the glib attack on the principles of free enterprise? What exactly is it about free markets that make you say such a thing? I assume you are saying that the free exchange of goods and services leads to the jungle (and I also assume that by that you mean it leads to some sort of chaos and 'dog-eat-dog'mentality). Would you be a little more specific and a little
    less snide please?

    3. Are you talking perhaps about census jobs?  The true ratio difference between govt jobs and private sector jobs has been
    dwindling for many years now. And by even quoting such a statistic, are you endorsing the desirability of less govt jobs? What are
    your true feelings about govt jobs vis-a-vis private sector jobs?

    4. Yes, I also include the govt programs created and expanded by the Republican administrations as well. As I stated in my post, this enlargement of govt 'charity' programs has occured under all administrations. Listing govt program expansions originating or expanding under only Republican admins does nothing to rebut my contention that they are harmful.

    5. What you refer to as the 'Noble Lie' is itself nothing more than a cleverly worded deception to placate the masses and provide
    pseudo-justification for blatant and destructive govt deficit spending practices. In fact, if you want, let me know and we can
    analyze this one particular topic in depth. 

  • Jul 21, 2011 05:34 PM
    Last: 6yr

    And where, exactly, in this quote, do you see her predicting that the world would end in 2006? There's a difference between
    'we are in the last days' and 'the world will end in 2006'. Biblically speaking, the term 'last days' can encompass a much
    longer period than a year; it may mean a 'generation' (around 40 years or so), and may even be used to indicate a period as
    long as a thousand years.

    Her prayer reflects the view that most Christians hold; that world conditions now seem to be coming together to fulfill the
    Bible's prophesies describing the events that the world would be experiencing when the Lord has determined that the time is
    right for the return of Christ and God's judgement.

    I personally have no qualms whatsoever with anyone (candidate or private citizens) who contemplates or reflects upon these
    issues; a belief in a higher-power and our responsibility to at least consider the ramifications involved is reassuring to me. 

  • Aug 05, 2011 08:27 PM
    Last: 10yr

    Inre to the (I believe) long overdue downgrading of our nations credit standing consider these facts:

    1. The slow, but consistent, debasing of our currency from precious-metal backing to fiat status

    2. The steady increase of govt regulations and controls over our once free-market and the abondonment of laissez-faire principles

    3. The large % increase in the ratio between public (govt) employment and private business

    4. The encouraged enlargement of govt charity and social programs and citizen dependency on the same

    5. The continual habit of spending more than you take in

    Each of these items (and many, many more that could be enumerated) have all contributed to the decline in our nation's wealth, its loss
    of individual freedoms, and its lose of moral direction and purpose.

    This has NOT been caused by any one political party; neither the dems nor the reps are responsible, per se, as the engineers of this
    decline. Rather, it has been the result of a single collectivist mindset that holds sway regardless of party affiliation.

    And it's amazing how the powers that be continue to keep alive, within the mindset of the American citizens, the notion that we should
    all blame one another; in the meantime we fail to put the spotlight on the true rascals.

    The Founding Fathers had it right: consider the govt to be a 'fearful master' and limit its power with a charter of enumerated powers.
    Tell them specifically what they can do and then jealously gurard against them doing anything else.  At one time the govt needed permisssion from the people to do something and the people were free to do what they wanted  without having to get permission; this has now been turned on it's head:  the govt can do anything it wants without explicit permission and we the people need to receive permission to do what we want.  What a shame.