Title: "Adam Smith's Grave."
I look at OpEdNews and other what are called alternative sites. OpEdNews is supposed to be progressive; however, lots of libertarian capitalists (sort of paleoconservatives) do what is called troll the sites to post comments, articles, and links there. They do this in an attempt to swing people from the giving-and-sharing economic model to Adam Smith capitalism. The libertarian capitalists claim that everything other than their brand of capitalism is flawed. They complain that socialists use coercion in attempt to force them, the capitalists, into sharing. They also complain about how central planning doesn't work, never has worked, and never will. That's it. That's the sum total of their political economic model.
Well, let's take a quick look. First of all, not all brands of socialism are coercive. That knocks down the entire argument of the libertarian capitalists. Second, not all socialism is centrally planned. That too knocks down the entire argument of the libertarian capitalists. Third, the libertarian capitalist (in general) say that there is only one place where coercion is acceptable and that's to enforce their right to be capitalists, meaning to open markets where they aren't wanted. It's called gunboat diplomacy. It was used on Japan for instance when the U.S. said open up your market or we open fire. That third point simply points to the utter hypocrisy of the idiotic position that is libertarian capitalism.
There is a word that is often used by capitalists. It's "envy." Supposedly, anyone who doesn't like the capitalists system envies the rich, covets what the rich possess, and wants to gain those possessions away by immoral, unethical, and frankly illegal means. Well, immoral, unethical, and illegal as used here by the libertarian capitalists are just selective connotations of the terms hypocritically applied. The rich have what they have by immoral, unethical, and frankly illegal means. Their ancestors stole the Commons by force of arms. It's that simple. The system has been enforced by threats and violence ever since. It's never been a real choice by a truly informed electorate. What the common people have wanted is their stolen inheritance back from the thieving capitalists.
The libertarian capitalists are fond of attempting to use the term egalitarianism out of context. Egalitarianism doesn't mean that there aren't any differences between people. It means rather that those with gifts serve the whole, and those with fewer gifts are thereby treated with all the love and compassion that those with gifts ought to want to receive as well. It's Christian. The libertarian capitalists hate Christianity, because their hearts are too cold, small, and hard for the Golden Rule.
Another charge against the heart of the New Commandment is that it is for a quota system; however, if all are serving, as in Christianity, this is moot. The hang-up with the libertarian capitalists is their selfishness.
The libertarian capitalists reached their height with the last 30 some years especially beginning with the Reagan October Surprise when the Reaganites stole the election by doing a dirty-tricks deal with the Iranians to hold the American hostages until Reagan's inauguration.
Now though we can see all the fruits of the terrible laissez-faire capitalists. Their inherent selfish competition (inherently immoral) has brought the U.S. to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and perhaps in the history of the nation if proper steps are not taken to reverse all the policies and procedures of those laissez-faire capitalists. They brought on the Great Depression too.
An example link provided by the wholly mistaken libertarian or anarcho-capitalists is to an article where one Murray N. Rothbard revisits in 1991 the introduction to his work entitled, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor," written in 1970.
There are many other things I write about libertarian capitalism you may discover by a search of this site.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)