The Laissez Faire movement has resulted in the Real Estate bust. Therefore, the opposite is the right direction. The opposite also entails freely choosing. Right now, we aren't free (according to the powers that be) to choose a post-capitalist society. The capitalists still cling to power via militant coercion. They own the Pentagon.
If you are stuck for awhile under capitalism while its underpinnings weaken and the Empire's foundation breaks up and crumbles sending the top-heavy greedy tumbling and crashing to the ground, if you can't bring yourself to following Jesus Christ's pattern (we call you to), then do what you can bring yourself to do.
During the Great Depression, the people could see that Wall Street and the Bankers ruined everything. The New Deal was a way to placate. The problem with the New Deal is that it didn't go all the way. If you are going to do things from within the coercive system (evil system), then the least you can do is what is best for the most and the poor as opposed to the richest, who won't starve in either case.
Soak the Rich.
Why privatize Social Security? Why break up Medicare? Undo the tax cuts for the rich. Only don't just undo them, go way beyond where they were before. No body needs to be a billionaire while other people are homeless and hungry. How much does any one person need to live well? Beyond that is excess. It's sinful.
Bust the Trusts.
Kill the private National Bank.
Nationalize the Federal Reserve.
Nationalize the currency.
Out New Deal the New Deal via geometric progression.
Pass full employment. No systemic unemployment allowed.
Guarantee an annual income.
Do public works with public employees.
De-privatize what has been privatized.
Nationalize what should have been nationalized.
Do a Manhattan Project times ten on solar and other energy systems.
Make peace around the world.
Bring the troops home everywhere.
Build camp grounds with farm land for all the homeless. Let the people in them own them and run them by consensus.
Don't back Wal-Mart's anti-unionism.
These things are less evil than the superrich getting super richer.
By the way, whatever they (the laissez faire crowd) are saying, things are worse – much worse.
Now, if you have philosophical problems with this, then consider real Christianity. It isn't capitalism, but it isn't coercive either.
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)