Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO The foundation of an economic system is labor. They all are challenged with the question, how do you motivate a person to not work for himself but for someone else? Will he work for his state, his community, to get rich or to spare himself the lash. The big debate about slavery and what ultimately contributed to the Civil War was that it wasn't an economic system but a social system. It was proposed that slave owners although wealthy, were not trying to get rich. They were using slavery to maintain a lifestyle. Their wealth was in part due to the fact that they cornered to market on labor itself. If you needed labor you have to purchase it from a slave owner. In capitalism everyone is supposedly trying to get rich including labor. Isn't that why people go to work today?
Both of those caused by GOVERNMENT POLICY run amok. We've not had true capitalism for many years in the U.S. It is very highly regulated, and has been for over a century and more. Your Communism won't work, nor will more socialism and more OVER REGULATION.
You are 180 degrees wrong.
In both of those cases, the problem was a lack of government oversight. In both cases, government regulations had been pulled back to allow capitalism to do its own thing.
IMO The foundation of an economic system is labor.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but it's a little more complicated than just labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The "bible element" is sadly laughable and ironic because it simply doesn't exist in the bible.
Oh, yes, it does. It specifically states the Hamites are to be slaves of the Hebrews.
The Hamites are the Negroid race.
There are numerous passages where both Yahweh and Jesus condone and support slavery, and Jesus even teaches how to be a good slave and obey your master.
It does beg the question how dumb are Blacks to worship a god that condemned them to slavery.
Oh, yes, it does. It specifically states the Hamites are to be slaves of the Hebrews.
The Hamites are the Negroid race.
Wrong. Dead biblically wrong. And a person who knows scripture knows that's wrong.
This is the curse:
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.
When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers.†-- Genesis 9:18-25
Ham, the son of Noah, had four sons: Canaan, Cush, Phut, and Mizraim. The son who was explicitly cursed was Canaan. The curse was not upon either of the other three brothers
Moreover:
He also said, “Worthy of praise is the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem! May God enlarge Japheth’s territory and numbers! May he live in the tents of Shem
and may Canaan be his slave!†-- Genesis 9:26, 27
So Canaan's slavery would be specifically to Shem (his uncle), not to anyone else.
According to the Old Testament, the descendants of Mizraim would populate the lower (northern) Nile and become the Egyptians, the descendants of Cush would populate the upper (southern) Nile and become the sub-Saharan Africans, while the descendants of Phut would go farther west and become the Libyans.
In the bible, the descendants of Canaan would become the original residents of the region of the Sinai Peninsula and what would become Israel. The descendants of Shem would become the Israelites. This passage is actually the bible's explanation of what would be continuous Old Testament enmity between the Israelites and the Canaanites.
In the Bible, black Africans are descendants of Cush. For instance:
Can the Cu****e change his skin, or a leopard his spots? -- Jeremiah 13:23
In many bibles, "Cu****e" is translated "Ethiopian." This is old stuff. It's been recognized since at least the Middle Ages that the bible depicts black Africans as the descendants of Cush.
And in both the OT and the NT, relationships by the Israelites/Jews with the Cu****es were shown to be favorable.
So the "curse of Ham" was never upon black people.
That's just plain not in the bible. It was a lie from the start, invented by slaveholders in America and not part of anyone else's interpretation of the bible.
Quote:
There are numerous passages where both Yahweh and Jesus condone and support slavery, and Jesus even teaches how to be a good slave and obey your master.
Jesus (and later, Paul) set up a group of people who had a particular mission. They had to deal with the world as it was. Just like Christians in China or North Korea are not trying to turn those governments into havens of democracy, the mission of the Church was not to fix the Roman Empire.
If you'll recall, the Spartacus rebellion had been less than 100 years earlier, and the Romans were vigilant against anything else that smelled like another slave rebellion.
Within the Church, while avoiding overtly preaching the overthrow of Rome's slave-based economy (which would have brought the Roman army on their heads), Paul did preach a new relationship between people within the Church that essentially made slavery impossible. Such as:
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. --
This verse changes everything. It makes both of them the slaves of God and says that God sees no difference between them. It goes straight back to:
The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his other slaves to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that slave whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
But suppose the slave says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. -- Luke 12:42-46
Paul changed the "slave" from being the "master's" property into the "master's" responsibility.
Quote:
It does beg the question how dumb are Blacks to worship a god that condemned them to slavery.
Because black people realized the bible did not do that. White slaveholders--and only those whites who held slaves-- simply lied and lived their lie to the very end.
And still justify themselves by the lie, even though the truth is right there written in black and white.
In both of those cases, the problem was a lack of government oversight. In both cases, government regulations had been pulled back to allow capitalism to do its own thing.
Remarkable that liberals' defense now seems to be that government can either (a) take over all business and run everything themselves, or (b) govt must release all reins and let people do anything they want, regardless of others' rights.
I'm not sure which idea is sillier.
Some old document got it right in the first place, saying that the reason men formed governments over themselves, was to protect people's rights. The people who wrote and ratified it, modified it before it was enacted... but they didn't modify that part.
Another document that came a little later, said that it was forming a new government, and that that government would have only the power and authority that that document gave it. If the people wanted the govt to have any more powers, it provided a way they could modify the document... but it was a long and cantankerous process, which had little input from Congress (and none from the President), but was done mostly by the states.
And the powers that weren't given to the Fed govt by the document, could still be exercised by the states and lower govts if they wanted to, unless the document specifically banned them (coining money, slavery etc.)
But these big-govt pushers seem to trying to pretend that conservatism requires no govt action at all. No prosecution of theft, fraud, coercion at all. As I said, that's completely silly. Conservatism is the idea of letting people do what they want without such acts... which take away choice from their victims. Government exists to protect those rights too.
The biggest problem with the bio-govt pushers is that they often IGNORE those legitimate govt functions while pushing others, usually running more and more of the business themselves, often in deleterious ways, and piling on the taxes, paperwork, restrictions etc. They are, in fact, taking away the freedom of people who never took away any of other people's rights, to run their own lives (and businesses) as they see fit without harming others' rights.
They spend far less time prosecuting actually violations of people's rights, and far more time cracking down on everybody, most of whom never violated anything.
And you probably remember what that frist old document I mentioned, said about what must happen when government becomes abusive of people's rights: "it is their [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Remarkable that liberals' defense now seems to be that government can either (a) take over all business and run everything themselves, or (b) govt must release all reins and let people do anything they want, regardless of others' rights.
I'm not sure which idea is sillier.
Some old document got it right in the first place, saying that the reason men formed governments over themselves, was to protect people's rights. The people who wrote and ratified it, modified it before it was enacted... but they didn't modify that part.
Another document that came a little later, said that it was forming a new government, and that that government would have only the power and authority that that document gave it. If the people wanted the govt to have any more powers, it provided a way they could modify the document... but it was a long and cantankerous process, which had little input from Congress (and none from the President), but was done mostly by the states.
And the powers that weren't given to the Fed govt by the document, could still be exercised by the states and lower govts if they wanted to, unless the document specifically banned them (coining money, slavery etc.)
But these big-govt pushers seem to trying to pretend that conservatism requires no govt action at all. No prosecution of theft, fraud, coercion at all. As I said, that's completely silly. Conservatism is the idea of letting people do what they want without such acts... which take away choice from their victims. Government exists to protect those rights too.
The biggest problem with the bio-govt pushers is that they often IGNORE those legitimate govt functions while pushing others, usually running more and more of the business themselves, often in deleterious ways, and piling on the taxes, paperwork, restrictions etc. They are, in fact, taking away the freedom of people who never took away any of other people's rights, to run their own lives (and businesses) as they see fit without harming others' rights.
They spend far less time prosecuting actually violations of people's rights, and far more time cracking down on everybody, most of whom never violated anything.
And you probably remember what that frist old document I mentioned, said about what must happen when government becomes abusive of people's rights: "it is their [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but it's a little more complicated than just labor.
Oh, yes, it does. It specifically states the Hamites are to be slaves of the Hebrews.
The Hamites are the Negroid race.
There are numerous passages where both Yahweh and Jesus condone and support slavery, and Jesus even teaches how to be a good slave and obey your master.
It does beg the question how dumb are Blacks to worship a god that condemned them to slavery.
Without labor (someone producing something for someone other than themself) you don't have a consumer. Without a consumer you don't have capitalism. Capitalism is when you turn something into money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
