I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life.
My proverbial fresh fruit vendor mentions to me that heās struggling to keep up with demand, so I tell him I can help him sell his fruit, and Iāll do it for a 15% commission. He bargains me down to 10%, and we have an agreement. He tells me which hours heās open and I tell him I sell his fruit 24/7. After a few months, he tells me I should wear a more professional looking shirt, and I reply that his sales are up 30% MoM with me running sales, but if he really wants to control my wardrobe Iāll go sell for the competing fruit stand over there. Howās exactly am I being controlled? Iām not; Iām in control of my own labor, selling it at an agreeable rate.
You also mentioned that corporations control politicians. To the degree thatās true, itās only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so. If we could stick to the 10th Amendment and return the government to its proper 18th Century size, thereād be nothing for lobbyists to do. The federal government should be responsible for almost nothing. It should be tiny. Thatās the root of the problem you blame on corporations. Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we arenāt actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.
Iām not sure what the āworld freedom indexā is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. Big-government policies have eroded limits on government, public spending continues to rise, and the regulatory burden on business has increased. Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of āfreeā will require significant changes to reduce the size and scope of government.
Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying peopleās freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.
When I say āsecularismā, Iām referring to the social trend of reduced church membership, 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.
Which is to say, we can really talk past each other sometimes.
The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
What a libertine and hedonistic notion of freedom. It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Our cultureās founding document is built upon a theological proposition:
[ā¦] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.āThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, [ā¦]
Our entire culture is built upon that, a theological proposition.
And if you read all of the old American documents, almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably donāt even recognize if youāre an atheist. Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation. God is our purpose for being, our purpose for living, and our purpose for freedom. That would not have been a contentious assertion in the past.
itās 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 youāre 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.
Thatās 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.
Iām not sure what the āworld freedom indexā 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 āsecularismā, Iām referring to the social trend of reduced church membership
I donāt want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnāt 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 donāt 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.
Iāll 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.
ā¦] 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 doesnāt say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably donāt even recognize if youāre an atheist.
Iāve 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 āregardless of government sizeā, part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If youāre 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 āthe Fedā always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know thatās not what you meant.
I donāt 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 ā none. Thatās 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 peopleās liberty, any more than theyāre 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 isnāt bribery. Itās 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 donāt all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the peopleās 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 donāt think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be.
It basically didnāt exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
Thatās our natural federal government size.
When you say ānaturalā 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 itās size, because thatās all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesnāt 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 peopleās liberty, any more than theyāre 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 isnāt bribery. Itās just speech, similar to advertising.
If thatās all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but thatās not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itās 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 donāt see how removing the governmentās 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.
Thatās progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, theyād be rallying the militia.
Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
You say that like itās a bad thing. In retrospect itās clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal governmentās only problem then was they couldnāt get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. Whatās more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I donāt 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 youāll 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 thereās nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as youāre sorta doing now.
Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itās 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, thereās 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 donāt see how removing the governmentās ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america.
Letās distinguish between state and federal control. I believe itās a sovereign stateās 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
Iāve already addressed this. Itās 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 donāt 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.
Thatās 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 itās a bad thing.
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shayās rebellion, the nationās debts werenāt being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itās blockade (which couldnāt 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, thereās 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. Itās incredibly difficult.
I believe itās a sovereign stateās 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 didnāt 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 isnāt small businesses, itās 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 thatās just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youāre 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 youād 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 youāll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
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, youāll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. Youāll 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 youāre 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 donāt care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if youāre a gas station attendant then youād 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 thatās just one example.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesnāt understand that youāre productive working from home, then the jobās a bad match for you and you should find a better match. Thatās not anyone having control over the other party; itās just conflicting values.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youāre exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
Iāve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everythingās 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 youād never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldnāt want a business to be democratic any more than weād want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Itās a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses arenāt democratic.
If youāve ever tried to hire a CEO (and itās obvious you havenāt), youād know itās extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. Thereās almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, youāre taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, Iām 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 donāt seem to be discussing any of these things, but theyāre 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 youāll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Yes, well thatās true if weāre only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But thatās not evidence that companies seek power over people. Itās just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while thatās not true of all journalists, theyāve 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 ānot spamā?), thatās not corporations trying to control people. Itās just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe theyāre making the world a better place.
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price.
Agreed. And with todayās huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybodyās 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 donāt care when people work
And thatās you, which is great. But most places arenāt like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
Thatās not anyone having control over the other party
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
Everythingās on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
You canāt have negotiation without leverage, and you canāt 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 Iāll move on.
we wouldnāt want a business to be democratic any more than weād 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.
itās extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well
Thatās because todayās corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldnāt be a problem.
Iām lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed.
Iām 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 ānot spamā?)
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it triggerās your email hostās spam filters. Itās often a case of quantity instead of content. Either that or a really stupid bug. The whole field of tech is littered with them.
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 wouldnāt have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shayās rebellion, the nationās debts werenāt being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itās blockade (which couldnāt 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 donāt 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 Iād be okay with it if weād 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. Thatās basically what the Constitutionās 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. Itās 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 didnāt (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 ārandomā searches.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didnāt 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 wouldnāt have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
They definitely didnāt intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
I donāt 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 nationās loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct ārandomā 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 donāt exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
But reality is like that.
Iām 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 businessā size. It also doesnāt take into account the power/influence a company has, or itās 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 cityās 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 āregardless of government sizeā, part 2 of 2:
I donāt want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnāt 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 āseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.ā The article also notes that:
The term āsecularismā has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
Thatās 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 donāt believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesnāt exist. Youāre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youāre either with God or youāre against Him. Thatās a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan ā even if youāre unaware that youāre doing so ā and even if you think thatās impossible ā thatās what youāre 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.
Iāll 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.
ā¦which I rebutted. I wonder if youāre 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.
Itās the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canāt overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
Iāve 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? (āNeitherā would be an invalid answer.)
Thatās awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I donāt think they match, but again definitions arenāt really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesnāt exist. Youāre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say ācomplete denialā, 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.
Thatās a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
Thatās because I donāt think it makes sense. I donāt believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itās kind of like asking āare you rooting for team A or team Bā, but the sports teams* that youāre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnāt make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenāt sports teams, but I couldnāt think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan ā even if youāre unaware that youāre doing so ā and even if you think thatās impossible ā thatās what youāre doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
Iām embracing neither. I canāt embrace something I donāt believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you donāt 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 werenāt good reasons.
Itās 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 canāt 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? (āNeitherā would be an invalid answer.)
Iām sorry but the answer is āneitherā whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to āchristian logicā 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 arenāt really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking weāre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weāre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say ācomplete denialā, 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 donāt 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 didnāt get far. Sorry. But no, I donāt pretend to know what you really know and what you donāt. Thatās between you and God, not me. I just think youāve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I donāt believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itās kind of like asking āare you rooting for team A or team Bā, but the sports teams* that youāre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnāt make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
Thatās a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itās absurd to pretend theyāre not. Youāre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youāre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youāre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godās blessing, and whatās far worse is youāre arrogantly pretending youāre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatās why I say youāre 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 didnāt exist.
āVerbal Kint
Iām embracing neither. I canāt embrace something I donāt believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you donāt 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 werenāt 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 ā thatās what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youāre 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.
Iād say thatās reasonable if I wasnāt 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.
Itās worth noting, though, that you mention that weāre a 246 year old country, and itās 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iād 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 wouldnāt 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 āyeetā 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 āobjectiveā answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donāt see much point in talking about it.
Thatās between you and God, not me. I just think youāve 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 doesnāt 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 itās absurd to pretend theyāre not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but thatās not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenāt literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donāt exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnāt anything physical or some being, itās a human label.
Youāre 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 youāre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godās 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 itās very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donāt 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.
youāre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I canāt say I am smarter than something I donāt 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 itās 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldnāt be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Iād rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iāll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an āobjectiveā answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donāt see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youāll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyāll 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 sideās. I suspect thatās what youāre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itās 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 whatās more, Iād 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 itās a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenāt 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 āphotosynthesisā 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 Iām pretty sure this is the first time Iāve 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 dāĆŖtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iāve written comes down to that. To my view, itās crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itās 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 itās very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donāt 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 donāt 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 Godās handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weāve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoās Allegory of the Cave is what weāve 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, itās probable youāre evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
Youāre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenāt had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect thatās what youāre 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 āsecularists/secularismā, 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 āchristianā, 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 āgoodā and āevilā exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
āBut the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itās absurd to pretend theyāre not.ā
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but Iām pretty sure this is the first time Iāve 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 āburn the house downā 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 thatās 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 isnāt a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iāll 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, itās probable youāre evaluating an illusion.
Thatās a very broad generalization.
Youāre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenāt 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 havenāt had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatās your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatās eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonās interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iām curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of āchristianā, 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 āsecularismā has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youāre aware of a more appropriate word, Iām 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. Itās 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 āburn the house downā 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. Thereās nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iām sorry if I twisted your ātry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryā with āburn the house downā, 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 donāt 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 doesnāt exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donāt know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatās crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itās created by God to work in a certain way, and weāve 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 thatās a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If youāre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatās reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godās glory, so it doesnāt 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 Godās 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 havenāt had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatās your ELO if you have one?
I donāt. Back when I played regularly, I didnāt care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Reply to ājust my opinionā, Part 2 of 2:
My proverbial fresh fruit vendor mentions to me that heās struggling to keep up with demand, so I tell him I can help him sell his fruit, and Iāll do it for a 15% commission. He bargains me down to 10%, and we have an agreement. He tells me which hours heās open and I tell him I sell his fruit 24/7. After a few months, he tells me I should wear a more professional looking shirt, and I reply that his sales are up 30% MoM with me running sales, but if he really wants to control my wardrobe Iāll go sell for the competing fruit stand over there. Howās exactly am I being controlled? Iām not; Iām in control of my own labor, selling it at an agreeable rate.
You also mentioned that corporations control politicians. To the degree thatās true, itās only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so. If we could stick to the 10th Amendment and return the government to its proper 18th Century size, thereād be nothing for lobbyists to do. The federal government should be responsible for almost nothing. It should be tiny. Thatās the root of the problem you blame on corporations. Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
Iām not sure what the āworld freedom indexā is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
When I say āsecularismā, Iām referring to the social trend of reduced church membership, 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.
Which is to say, we can really talk past each other sometimes.
What a libertine and hedonistic notion of freedom. It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Our cultureās founding document is built upon a theological proposition:
Our entire culture is built upon that, a theological proposition.
And if you read all of the old American documents, almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably donāt even recognize if youāre an atheist. Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation. God is our purpose for being, our purpose for living, and our purpose for freedom. That would not have been a contentious assertion in the past.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If youāre 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 donāt want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnāt 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 donāt believe in Satan either.
Iāll 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 doesnāt say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
Iāve 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 āregardless of government sizeā, 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 peopleās liberty, any more than theyāre incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
Except lobbying isnāt bribery. Itās 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 donāt all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the peopleās 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 didnāt exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
When you say ānaturalā 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 itās size, because thatās all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesnāt 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 thatās all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but thatās not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itās 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 donāt see how removing the governmentās 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.
Thatās progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, theyād be rallying the militia.
You say that like itās a bad thing. In retrospect itās clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal governmentās only problem then was they couldnāt get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. Whatās more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I donāt 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 youāll 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 thereās nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as youāre sorta doing now.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, thereās 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.
Letās distinguish between state and federal control. I believe itās a sovereign stateās role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
Iāve already addressed this. Itās 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 donāt 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 Shayās rebellion, the nationās debts werenāt being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itās blockade (which couldnāt 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. Itās 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 didnāt 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 isnāt small businesses, itās 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 thatās just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youāre 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 youād 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 youāll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Reply to ābuilt a systemā, part 2 of 2:
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, youāll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. Youāll 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 youāre 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 donāt care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if youāre a gas station attendant then youād better show up before the start of your shift.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesnāt understand that youāre productive working from home, then the jobās a bad match for you and you should find a better match. Thatās not anyone having control over the other party; itās just conflicting values.
Iāve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everythingās 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 wouldnāt want a business to be democratic any more than weād want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Itās a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses arenāt democratic.
If youāve ever tried to hire a CEO (and itās obvious you havenāt), youād know itās extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. Thereās almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, youāre taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, Iām 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 donāt seem to be discussing any of these things, but theyāre how money is distributed.
Yes, well thatās true if weāre only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But thatās not evidence that companies seek power over people. Itās just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while thatās not true of all journalists, theyāve 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 ānot spamā?), thatās not corporations trying to control people. Itās just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe theyāre making the world a better place.
Agreed. And with todayās huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybodyās 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 thatās you, which is great. But most places arenāt 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
Iām more or less using definition 1a
You canāt have negotiation without leverage, and you canāt have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So Iāll 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.
Thatās because todayās corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldnāt be a problem.
Iām 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
Iāll 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 triggerās your email hostās spam filters. Itās 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 ābuilt a systemā, part 1 of 2:
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldnāt have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I donāt 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 Iād be okay with it if weād just stick to their original design.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. Thatās basically what the Constitutionās 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. Itās 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 didnāt (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 ārandomā searches.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They definitely didnāt 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 nationās 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 donāt exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
Iām 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 businessā size. It also doesnāt take into account the power/influence a company has, or itās 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 cityās 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 āregardless of government sizeā, 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 āseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.ā The article also notes that:
Thatās awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I know you believe Satan doesnāt exist. Youāre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youāre either with God or youāre against Him. Thatās a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan ā even if youāre unaware that youāre doing so ā and even if you think thatās impossible ā thatās what youāre 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.
ā¦which I rebutted. I wonder if youāre missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
Itās the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canāt 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? (āNeitherā would be an invalid answer.)
I donāt think they match, but again definitions arenāt really why I am here, so I will move on.
When you say ācomplete denialā, 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.
Thatās because I donāt think it makes sense. I donāt believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itās kind of like asking āare you rooting for team A or team Bā, but the sports teams* that youāre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnāt make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenāt sports teams, but I couldnāt think of a better analogy.
Iām embracing neither. I canāt embrace something I donāt believe in.
I know you donāt 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 werenāt 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.
Iām sorry but the answer is āneitherā whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to āchristian logicā 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 weāre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weāre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
I have no background in psychology, but I donāt 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 didnāt get far. Sorry. But no, I donāt pretend to know what you really know and what you donāt. Thatās between you and God, not me. I just think youāve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
Thatās a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itās absurd to pretend theyāre not. Youāre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youāre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youāre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godās blessing, and whatās far worse is youāre arrogantly pretending youāre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatās why I say youāre in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
āVerbal 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 ā thatās what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youāre 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.
Iād say thatās reasonable if I wasnāt 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.
Itās worth noting, though, that you mention that weāre a 246 year old country, and itās 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iād 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 wouldnāt 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 āyeetā 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 āobjectiveā answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donāt 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 doesnāt 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 thatās not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenāt literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donāt exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnāt anything physical or some being, itās 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 itās very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donāt 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 canāt say I am smarter than something I donāt 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.
Iād rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iāll say I am from the north east coast.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youāll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyāll 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 sideās. I suspect thatās what youāre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itās 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 whatās more, Iād 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 itās 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 āphotosynthesisā 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 Iām pretty sure this is the first time Iāve 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 dāĆŖtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iāve written comes down to that. To my view, itās crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itās 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 donāt 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 Godās handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weāve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoās Allegory of the Cave is what weāve 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, itās probable youāre evaluating an illusion.
Youāre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenāt had one in ages. I miss playing it.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word āsecularists/secularismā, 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 āchristianā, 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 āgoodā and āevilā 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 āburn the house downā 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 thatās 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 isnāt a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iāll 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?
Thatās 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 havenāt had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatās your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatās eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonās interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iām 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 āsecularismā has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youāre aware of a more appropriate word, Iām 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. Itās 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. Thereās nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iām sorry if I twisted your ātry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryā with āburn the house downā, 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 donāt 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 doesnāt exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donāt know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatās crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itās created by God to work in a certain way, and weāve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
If youāre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatās reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godās glory, so it doesnāt 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 Godās creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I donāt. Back when I played regularly, I didnāt care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.