The following is my answer to "Chavez Reminds Us that Democracy Is Not Freedom," submitted by Darren Wolfe. OpEdNews. February 18, 2009.," by Jacob G. Hornberger. The Future of Freedom Foundation. February 17, 2009. I posted it here: "
Being Free of the Greedy is Real Liberty
I wrote the following before reading the other comments above.
When capitalists control, of what is one free? When capitalists control, are we free of evil? Under laissez-faire capitalists, everything is owned by capitalists – everything! If someone doesn't do what he or she is told by the bosses and if the bosses have the power via their euphemistic "clubs for protection," then the person who doesn't do what he's told will starve or fight back to take control. Where's the freedom from evil?
Even under Jesus, there is a yoke. It's just lighter than the one under capitalists – much, much lighter.
Who's the government when the government is of, by, and for the people? How are the people slaves when they all are serving all as the least rather than as capitalist overlords?
Your Libertarianism is sheer nonsense.
Before Social Security and Medicare, the hardhearted left retirees destitute after working a lifetime at 12 and 16 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week. The capitalists, selfish, greedy ones just threw the injured workers away to be taken care of by poor relatives. The people decided that Social Security is a good thing. All the people contribute to seeing to it collectively that no senior citizens are treated as dirt, the way the capitalists had treated them, and want to again, very much so.
The people decided that they didn't want capitalist snake-oil salesmen poisoning others (which was happening), so they started licensing people.
Gold? What we need is a change of heart from selfishness to unselfishness. All I hear so-called libertarians preaching is the selfish spirit. We don't need a mundane gold standard. Only the mundane gold-hoarders want that. The righteous want righteousness not your gold standard. They want the real wealth. They want to bring forth the real abundance and the real prosperity and not artificially created scarcity.
"...in Venezuela, there is more socialism and interventionism than there is here in the United States, which is why there is more poverty and misery in Venezuela." Oh, that statement just completely ignores the history of capitalist, imperialist exploitation of Venezuela. The U.S. forced open markets at gunpoint. Where was the freedom?
The claim that socialists claimed that a multi-billion bailout plan for the Wall Street investment bankers was all that was necessary is pure dung. It's very poor propaganda. Only idiots would buy it.
Everyone who knows anything about socialism knows that Henry Paulson is no socialist. He's a capitalist through and through and only did the hyper-greedy, selfish, private, special-advantage-and-privilege thing with the TARP. He didn't do it with any sharing-all thought in mind. Jacob G. Hornberger, you're only twisting the truth for your greedy, selfish reasons.
"...the Postal Service, the monopoly enterprise that won't dare permit competition." I thought you liked what the Founding Fathers created? Benjamin Franklin came up with the U.S. Postal Service. Where's your consistency, Jacob? Your article is riddled with hypocrisy. Franklin was an Empire builder.
What we are witnessing is what the economist Ludwig von Mises warned us about — that interventionism produces crises, which then serve as the excuse for more interventions, until the point is reached when the government owns and controls everything. Of course, that's the ultimate dream of every socialist. But as the people of Cuba, North Korea, and China will tell you, for the people living under pure socialism it is an absolute nightmare.
Who's living under pure socialism? If you think those places are pure socialism, you're dreaming. Also, Cuba has been under economic and trade barriers set up by the U.S. Empire. Had sanctions never been in place, the Cubans would not have suffered so. You're blaming Cuba for all of Cuba's problems when U.S. sanctions were designed to cause Cuba problems that Cuba would not otherwise have had. You're selectively ignoring things to further your false case for laissez-faire capitalism that can never stand up to a complete airing.
Furthermore, the current crisis was not caused by socialists but rather greedy bankers. Socialists do not want overlord bankers, Jacob. Your laissez-faire philosophy does nothing to prevent hyper-greedy, lying bankers from devouring everything and everyone. It rather facilitates them.
Ludwig von Mises was not the model of the person the American people need running the house. Economics is about running the house. That's the root meaning of the term. Jesus's way of running the house where the chief is the servant is the best way. Mises can't hold a candle to that. Why should Americans follow Mises when they have Jesus whom they've never truly been allowed to follow let alone learn what Jesus's real economic ideas are about?
Your article, Jacob, is so distorted. The Founders were worried about becoming aristocrats with huge private estates that couldn't be taken by the British crown. They were not worried about what was best for the common people. They were looking out for themselves, gaining the so-called best position to serve their wholly selfish desires.
They were slave owners, Jacob G. Hornberger. It took more compassion and giving-and-sharing types to through off the very slavery Thomas Jefferson used even against his own children he sired and hid.
The sooner the people wake up to the fact that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were wrongheaded on both ends of their ideological spectrum, the better.
I am against coercive socialism, but I'm against coercive capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist where it doesn't violently attack those who wish to give and share all.
Allowed to be as Jesus truly wants people to be, giving and sharing would prove vastly better than capitalism and the capitalist know it. That's why they are so violent. It doesn't excuse the Marxists, but Marx never would have even had a hearing had the people been allowed to follow Christ from the start.
Your way is doomed, Jacob. You're not going to win the argument. Both capitalism and coercion will disappear.
God bless all, even those rich in the unrighteous mammon.
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)