itâs 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 youâre 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.
Thatâs 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.
Iâm not sure what the âworld freedom indexâ 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 âsecularismâ, Iâm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership
I donât want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnât 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 donât 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.
Iâll 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.
âŠ] 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 doesnât say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably donât even recognize if youâre an atheist.
Iâve 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 âregardless of government sizeâ, part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If youâre 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 âthe Fedâ always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know thatâs not what you meant.
I donât 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 â none. Thatâs 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 peopleâs liberty, any more than theyâre 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 isnât bribery. Itâs 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 donât all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the peopleâs 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 donât think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be.
It basically didnât exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
Thatâs our natural federal government size.
When you say ânaturalâ 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 itâs size, because thatâs all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesnât 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 peopleâs liberty, any more than theyâre 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 isnât bribery. Itâs just speech, similar to advertising.
If thatâs all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but thatâs not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itâs 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 donât see how removing the governmentâs 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.
Thatâs progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, theyâd be rallying the militia.
Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
You say that like itâs a bad thing. In retrospect itâs clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal governmentâs only problem then was they couldnât get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. Whatâs more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I donât 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 youâll 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 thereâs nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as youâre sorta doing now.
Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itâs 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, thereâs 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 donât see how removing the governmentâs ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america.
Letâs distinguish between state and federal control. I believe itâs a sovereign stateâs 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
Iâve already addressed this. Itâs 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 donât 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.
Thatâs 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 itâs a bad thing.
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shayâs rebellion, the nationâs debts werenât being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itâs blockade (which couldnât 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, thereâs 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. Itâs incredibly difficult.
I believe itâs a sovereign stateâs 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 didnât 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 isnât small businesses, itâs 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 thatâs just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youâre 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 youâd 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 youâll 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, youâll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. Youâll 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 youâre 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 donât care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if youâre a gas station attendant then youâd 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 thatâs just one example.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesnât understand that youâre productive working from home, then the jobâs a bad match for you and you should find a better match. Thatâs not anyone having control over the other party; itâs just conflicting values.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youâre exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
Iâve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everythingâs 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 youâd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldnât want a business to be democratic any more than weâd want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Itâs a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses arenât democratic.
If youâve ever tried to hire a CEO (and itâs obvious you havenât), youâd know itâs extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. Thereâs almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, youâre taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, Iâm 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 donât seem to be discussing any of these things, but theyâre 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 youâll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Yes, well thatâs true if weâre only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But thatâs not evidence that companies seek power over people. Itâs just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while thatâs not true of all journalists, theyâve 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 ânot spamâ?), thatâs not corporations trying to control people. Itâs just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe theyâre making the world a better place.
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price.
Agreed. And with todayâs huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybodyâs 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 donât care when people work
And thatâs you, which is great. But most places arenât like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
Thatâs not anyone having control over the other party
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
Everythingâs on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
You canât have negotiation without leverage, and you canât 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 Iâll move on.
we wouldnât want a business to be democratic any more than weâd 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.
itâs extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well
Thatâs because todayâs corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldnât be a problem.
Iâm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed.
Iâm 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 ânot spamâ?)
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it triggerâs your email hostâs spam filters. Itâs 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 wouldnât have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shayâs rebellion, the nationâs debts werenât being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itâs blockade (which couldnât 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 donât 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 Iâd be okay with it if weâd 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. Thatâs basically what the Constitutionâs 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. Itâs 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 didnât (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 ârandomâ searches.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didnât 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 wouldnât have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
They definitely didnât intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
I donât 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 nationâs loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct ârandomâ 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 donât exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
But reality is like that.
Iâm 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 businessâ size. It also doesnât take into account the power/influence a company has, or itâs 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 cityâs 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 âregardless of government sizeâ, part 2 of 2:
I donât want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnât 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 âseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.â The article also notes that:
The term âsecularismâ has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
Thatâs 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 donât believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youâre either with God or youâre against Him. Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre 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.
Iâll 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.
âŠwhich I rebutted. I wonder if youâre 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.
Itâs the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canât overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
Iâve 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? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
Thatâs awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I donât think they match, but again definitions arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, 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.
Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
Thatâs because I donât think it makes sense. I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenât sports teams, but I couldnât think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you donât 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 werenât good reasons.
Itâs 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 canât 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? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
Iâm sorry but the answer is âneitherâ whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to âchristian logicâ 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 arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking weâre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weâre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, 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 donât 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 didnât get far. Sorry. But no, I donât pretend to know what you really know and what you donât. Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
Thatâs a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not. Youâre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youâre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs blessing, and whatâs far worse is youâre arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatâs why I say youâre 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 didnât exist.
âVerbal Kint
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you donât 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 werenât 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 â thatâs what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youâre 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.
Iâd say thatâs reasonable if I wasnât 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.
Itâs worth noting, though, that you mention that weâre a 246 year old country, and itâs 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iâd 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 wouldnât 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 âyeetâ 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 âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât see much point in talking about it.
Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve 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 doesnât 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 itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but thatâs not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donât exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnât anything physical or some being, itâs a human label.
Youâre 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 youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs 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 itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât 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.
youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I canât say I am smarter than something I donât 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 itâs 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldnât be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Iâd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iâll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youâll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyâll 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 sideâs. I suspect thatâs what youâre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itâs 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 whatâs more, Iâd 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 itâs a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât 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 âphotosynthesisâ 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 Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve 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 dâĂȘtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iâve written comes down to that. To my view, itâs crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itâs 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 itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât 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 donât 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 Godâs handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weâve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoâs Allegory of the Cave is what weâve 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, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect thatâs what youâre 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 âsecularists/secularismâ, 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 âchristianâ, 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 âgoodâ and âevilâ exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
âBut the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not.â
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve 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 âburn the house downâ 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 thatâs 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 isnât a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iâll 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, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
Thatâs a very broad generalization.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât 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 havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatâs eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonâs interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iâm curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of âchristianâ, 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 âsecularismâ has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm 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. Itâs 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 âburn the house downâ 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. Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iâm sorry if I twisted your âtry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryâ with âburn the house downâ, 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 donât 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 doesnât exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatâs crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve 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 thatâs a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If youâre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatâs reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât 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 Godâs 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 havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
I donât. Back when I played regularly, I didnât care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamyâs response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesnât understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end itâs culture war bullshit.
If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm all ears.
âThe decline of christianityâ
Every time I look to Christ for guidance
Even if we have free will that isnât an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
If youâre going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct.
Thatâs a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasnât Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering âgodâ in that context was wrong. We shouldnât just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât seem like a very compelling answer.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God.
Not only is that not true (because you added the âmost intelligentâ qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
Einstein is the most notable example.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So thatâs not really much of an argument.
I would now if I picked it back up.
Go for it! Itâs pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If youâre 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 donât want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnât 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 donât believe in Satan either.
Iâll 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 doesnât say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
Iâve 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 âregardless of government sizeâ, 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 peopleâs liberty, any more than theyâre incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
Except lobbying isnât bribery. Itâs 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 donât all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the peopleâs 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 didnât exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
When you say ânaturalâ 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 itâs size, because thatâs all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesnât 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 thatâs all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but thatâs not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. Itâs 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 donât see how removing the governmentâs 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.
Thatâs progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, theyâd be rallying the militia.
You say that like itâs a bad thing. In retrospect itâs clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal governmentâs only problem then was they couldnât get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. Whatâs more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I donât 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 youâll 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 thereâs nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as youâre sorta doing now.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, thereâs 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.
Letâs distinguish between state and federal control. I believe itâs a sovereign stateâs role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
Iâve already addressed this. Itâs 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 donât 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 Shayâs rebellion, the nationâs debts werenât being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with itâs blockade (which couldnât 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. Itâs 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 didnât 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 isnât small businesses, itâs 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 thatâs just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if youâre 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 youâd 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 youâll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Reply to âbuilt a systemâ, part 2 of 2:
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, youâll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. Youâll 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 youâre 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 donât care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if youâre a gas station attendant then youâd better show up before the start of your shift.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesnât understand that youâre productive working from home, then the jobâs a bad match for you and you should find a better match. Thatâs not anyone having control over the other party; itâs just conflicting values.
Iâve known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everythingâs 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 wouldnât want a business to be democratic any more than weâd want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. Itâs a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses arenât democratic.
If youâve ever tried to hire a CEO (and itâs obvious you havenât), youâd know itâs extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. Thereâs almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, youâre taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, Iâm 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 donât seem to be discussing any of these things, but theyâre how money is distributed.
Yes, well thatâs true if weâre only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But thatâs not evidence that companies seek power over people. Itâs just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while thatâs not true of all journalists, theyâve 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 ânot spamâ?), thatâs not corporations trying to control people. Itâs just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe theyâre making the world a better place.
Agreed. And with todayâs huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybodyâs 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 thatâs you, which is great. But most places arenât 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
Iâm more or less using definition 1a
You canât have negotiation without leverage, and you canât have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So Iâll 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.
Thatâs because todayâs corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldnât be a problem.
Iâm 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
Iâll 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 triggerâs your email hostâs spam filters. Itâs 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 âbuilt a systemâ, part 1 of 2:
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldnât have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I donât 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 Iâd be okay with it if weâd just stick to their original design.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. Thatâs basically what the Constitutionâs 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. Itâs 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 didnât (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 ârandomâ searches.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They definitely didnât 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 nationâs 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 donât exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
Iâm 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 businessâ size. It also doesnât take into account the power/influence a company has, or itâs 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 cityâs 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 âregardless of government sizeâ, 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 âseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.â The article also notes that:
Thatâs awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youâre either with God or youâre against Him. Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre 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.
âŠwhich I rebutted. I wonder if youâre missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
Itâs the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canât 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? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
I donât think they match, but again definitions arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, 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.
Thatâs because I donât think it makes sense. I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenât sports teams, but I couldnât think of a better analogy.
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
I know you donât 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 werenât 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.
Iâm sorry but the answer is âneitherâ whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to âchristian logicâ 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 weâre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weâre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
I have no background in psychology, but I donât 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 didnât get far. Sorry. But no, I donât pretend to know what you really know and what you donât. Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
Thatâs a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not. Youâre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youâre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs blessing, and whatâs far worse is youâre arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatâs why I say youâre in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
âVerbal 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 â thatâs what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youâre 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.
Iâd say thatâs reasonable if I wasnât 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.
Itâs worth noting, though, that you mention that weâre a 246 year old country, and itâs 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iâd 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 wouldnât 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 âyeetâ 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 âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât 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 doesnât 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 thatâs not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donât exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnât anything physical or some being, itâs 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 itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât 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 canât say I am smarter than something I donât 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.
Iâd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iâll say I am from the north east coast.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youâll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyâll 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 sideâs. I suspect thatâs what youâre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itâs 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 whatâs more, Iâd 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 itâs 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 âphotosynthesisâ 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 Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve 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 dâĂȘtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iâve written comes down to that. To my view, itâs crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itâs 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 donât 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 Godâs handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weâve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoâs Allegory of the Cave is what weâve 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, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât had one in ages. I miss playing it.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word âsecularists/secularismâ, 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 âchristianâ, 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 âgoodâ and âevilâ 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 âburn the house downâ 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 thatâs 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 isnât a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iâll 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?
Thatâs 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 havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatâs eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonâs interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iâm 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 âsecularismâ has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm 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. Itâs 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. Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iâm sorry if I twisted your âtry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryâ with âburn the house downâ, 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 donât 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 doesnât exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatâs crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
If youâre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatâs reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât 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 Godâs creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I donât. Back when I played regularly, I didnât care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamyâs response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesnât understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end itâs culture war bullshit.
âThe decline of christianityâ
Even if we have free will that isnât an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_civilization
If youâre going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
Thatâs a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasnât Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering âgodâ in that context was wrong. We shouldnât just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
Not only is that not true (because you added the âmost intelligentâ qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So thatâs not really much of an argument.
Go for it! Itâs pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.