This is in response to, "The Coming Class War; an Essay," on the Unfunded Liabilities and the Coming Class War blog.
Now, I don't agree with the first premises of the blog author.
The capitalists who will supposedly pay for the so-called "unfunded" entitlements include the banksters; however the poor too pay taxes, and the poor too work for those who have amassed more for self in the spirit of greed, violence, and/or other forms of depravity. The whole system right now is based upon the banksters. They run the show. Remove them, and evil will still seek the path of least resistance.
Now, certain people calling themselves libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, especially of the Ludwig von Mises ilk conjure up a vocabulary or a set of jargon where the banksters are not "real" capitalists, which is pure baloney.
They use the term crony capitalists (which I understand) as if to say that if only the whole world would see their light and be non-crony capitalists then that would be the best of all possible worlds given what, human nature? If human nature is incapable of rising to the level of Jesus, then why is it capable of foregoing banksterism in the Ludwig von Mises camp? It's inconsistent thinking.
The entitlement called Social Security was put into place also via a marketplace because laissez-faire capitalism's invisible hand is a monster that would eternally delay taking care but rather rape others forever to build fleeting mansions for self apart from the whole of the family of humanity. It's fratricide. It's leaving your brother half dead lying by the side of the road. You've read what Jesus said about the Good Samaritan. Do you disagree with Jesus? If you disagree with him on that, I have no use for you. I won't starve you or torture you, but you aren't glorified.
The market is a democracy. Well so too is the political marketplace of ideas. The so-called American Founding Fathers, often lauded by the Ludwig von Mises types (Austrian School of economics – a bunch of anti-Christs to a man and woman regardless of what any of them claim) when it suits them when they are attempting to lure others in before they switch the product, created a marketplace called the American political and governmental system. Convince people, and you "win." Sell them your ideas, and they'll buy them and follow you. Of course, the United States was born in violence and coercion.
So, why is competition sacrosanct where Ludwig von Mises's personal estate and business enterprise is concerned but wicked otherwise. Look, Ludwig von Mises and all the rest of that crowd have as their first principle self-centeredness. I agree that coercion is wrong, but I say it's wrong as a system all the time. They say it's wrong up to the point that they want to use it and when their ideology doesn't sell. Then they'll form violent vigilante groups (statism actually just under other connotations) to murder the democratic socialists because the ideology of those socialists is coercive.
Enough said, right?
Yes, that author hates unions, but what about corporations formed by the ultra-rich. Why is one union not okay whereas the other is? It's pure hypocrisy. Both are formed on self – one more than the other. Neither is the best way for humanity. He may agree, but obviously it's not his thrust. He's vastly more anti-union, as in worker, than he is against Big Business. Unions were in reaction to ultra-greed. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Unions were a compromise with council communism, which predates Marx by the way. It goes back to the tribe.
The author also fails to directly associate the banksters with General Motors, et al. He mentions AIG in particular where we know that Goldman Sachs would have been hit hard had AIG not been given a dime of the taxpayers' money. Yes, the author has many correct things to say, but he misses the big picture that the entire system is flat out wrong.
"Savers. ...worked all your life and set aside savings to take care of yourself in your retirement.... ...saved, didn't over-leverage and invested prudently, now anticipating a decent return on that savings...."
That was never the right way to go. That was the sucker's route. The author is looking at the superficial. The capitalist system is wrong at its heart, core, root. It's darkness. Were they cheated? Yes, but what else can be expected given the evil-hearted system of Nabal the churl?
Look, I don't care about trying to work out the minutia within a fatally flawed system. I'm interested only in the right system of the heart of every human being on the planet and wherever else we go. I'm not working within the system. I'm outside entering only to call people to come out to help set up the right way that is as consistent as we are able to make it with what Jesus described that enhanced the earlier understanding of righteousness.
Okay, I understand that by being presented with this blog and its author I'm afforded the opportunity to express its errors that are its shortsightedness, even though it sees more than the average person – some credit for that. I too am not yet perfected. There does though have to come a time when people will move off this disaster called the United States of America and the coming New World Order and rather move on to the Christian Commons.
So, there are selfish types who want to amass as Nabal in the Bible, who is the type known as the "churl" in Isaiah and about whose type Jesus spoke at length as being the problem rather than the solution. I wrote a post yesterday on that, in fact. Every little saver for self is at best a little Nabal in the ultimate sense relative to what Jesus has in mind for all of us together.
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)