You're viewing part of a thread.
They’re the same people.
That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you're right.
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can.
I suppose I understand that. But that doesn't excuse the behavior.
Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it's to feed your family? No, that's still murder.
Now we're not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.
And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs […]
I did know that! It's an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It's why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I'd like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.
Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them.
Some major things like what? I'd love to know how to end market demand, but that's a very hard problem to solve.
Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that's suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.
When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word "systemic" generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn't happened in a very long time in the US. Today's so-called racism is "systemic", meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists. (Edit: I take this back, as colleges were openly racist before the SCOTUS banned it, and woke corporations are still doing affirmative action. That's not systemic though, it's just actual racism.)
Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. I meant the argument that it's "good for the economy" doesn't convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don't care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don't find the argument compelling.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
OK, so to end the market demand for these drugs you first have to understand why they're used at all. Everybody knows they are harmful and addictive, nobody starts using them without knowing that it will harm them. So why do they use them? Primarily it is because of isolation and poverty, which are the two biggest indicators of crime and drug use. Humans have a built in need for socialization, and without that we have to cope in some way. Poverty is very similar, when we do not have stability in our life, a good source of food and shelter, when our well-being is in bad shape, just like with isolation we need some way to cope. Often times that method is drug use.
So if we can tackle the things leading to this isolation and poverty, it can go a long way towards reducing people's drug use. So lets look at the first of these source problems, and some solutions.
Isolation - Nowadays people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining communities. Part of that is poverty, but the largest part is how we structure our society. Here in the U.S. we don't have any semblance of work-life balance. We are the most productive we have ever been and yet we work more than we have in almost a century. How can somebody be reasonably expected to have a social life when they must work two jobs to make ends meet? We also get far less time off than other developed nations, in large part because we have no guaranteed minimum time off. Other countries on the other hand get weeks of time off at a minimum. There is also the physical structure of our society, the city planning and infrastructure. Everything in the U.S. is car dependent. Do you want to go hang out with friends? Do you want to go to church? Do you want to volunteer? Doesn't matter what activity you want to do, you are required to get their by car because no other valid options exist. We don't have the freedom to travel to places through other means because all cities everywhere are built for cars and only cars. It is also just dangerous to travel by foot or by bicycle in the U.S. because so little thought is put into the safety of pedestrians. Even if something is technically within walking/biking distance, there may be no sidewalk, pedestrian barriers, or trees. We also do not have the density or mixed use zoning that is needed to allow people to make strong communities in our neighborhoods. Everything is built too far spaced out when it could easily be built with community in mind.
So to fix the isolation we need:
- More mixed use & higher density zoning
- Better public transportation support
- Better pedestrian safety
- Minimum time off requirements
- U.S. GDP/Productivity rates need to be inversely tied to quantity of working hours without effecting wages
So that more or less covers the easy part, isolation. Poverty is a whole other monster.
Poverty - So this is a two part issue, a wage issue and a price issue. On the wage side of things, we as a society simply are not paid enough. Productivity rates have grown massively, but wages have not. And all that extra wealth that is being created is going directly to the rich. As a result people are impoverished. CEOs, company owners and shareholders take home extreme levels of wealth while your average Joe takes home crumbs at best. CEOs currently get paid somewhere on the order of 670 times as much as the lowest paid workers. CEOs are not working 670 times harder than any other worker out there. Our country has plenty of wealth to make sure everybody has a stable food source and secure housing, but the wealth is distributed such that it always goes to the rich. Part two of the poverty issue, is the price issue. Whether it is for pharmaceuticals, college, housing, or just groceries, the prices of everything have gotten completely out of hand. And that's not because these things take much more to manufacture/maintain. The cost to manufacture insulin is about $6 a vial yet it is sold for $300 at least for example. Colleges waits shit loads of their money on administration and sports. Housing is intentionally kept scarce to keep prices up, etc. Corporations and landlords are extracting every single ounce of wealth out of us as they possibly can, and it has immensely damage our society through poverty.
There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the gist. So to fix this, some of the things we will need to see is:
- Wages need to match productivity rates
- Minimum wage should return to being a living wage as it was originally intended to be, and to keep it that way it needs to be tied to inflation
- Regulation must stop CEOs & the rich from being paid at such high rates. I think a limit of 10 to 1 would be reasonable, as in for every 1 dollar the lowest paid employ is paid, the highest can only be paid 10. And that should include all methods of payment/benefits.
- Regulation for price gouging needs to be tightened to stop pharmaceutical companies from continuing their robbery of our citizens
- Housing needs an overhaul, I'd personally recommend georgism, massive investments in market rate housing construction, and zoning overhauls to allow for higher density housing & mixed use zones
- Education needs an overhaul as well. We ought to catch up with the rest of developed nations to have free higher education, but that is also it's own massive topic.
- Healthcare, same as education, we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world to have medicare for all. Our for-profit healthcare system has utterly failed us, again it's own massive topic.
And so that covers largely the source reasons why people start drug use in the first place. But there is still more to it. The third main category of fix for the cartels would be ending the war on drugs. It's been ~50 years of trying to get rid of drugs and we are no closer to doing so. It's clear that it isn't working. Drugs are more potent, dangerous, and available than they ever have been. If we were to decriminalize use of them we would save billions of dollars that could instead go towards the above fixes, and it would also reduce the profitability of the cartel's trade. If somebody is addicted to a drug, they should have a harm reduction program to help them through it. If the drugs on the street are more expensive, dirtier and riskier than what a free prescription can get them, then cartels would evaporate as they would have no customers. Other nations have tried this approach, and study after study shows that it is the most effective way to help people stop using drugs off the street, and to stop using drugs all together.
I find it frustrating and disappointing that kbin didn't notify me of this reply, particularly since you put so much effort into writing it. I'm glad I noticed it.
Thank you for your well thought-out reply on this. We are certainly coming from opposite perspectives, and I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something, because you made a lot of points.
My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad. America is supposed to be the land of the free, meaning all regulations of business should be prohibited, IMHO.
To my view, a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision. Because when we treat our bodies as God's abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn't an option. And as kids have grown up without prayer, we've seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.
That being said, I recognize that drug abuse existed before '62, and indeed has existed since time immemorial. And I recognize that even though I disagree with most of your points, isolation and poverty indeed may be underlying causes, in conjunction with secularism.
I don't have much more to say on the topic, but thank you again for that very well thought out reply. I looked up Georgism and learned what it's all about, so thank you.
I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something
I suspected as much.
My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad.
A government must regulate businesses or else they become monopolies, price gougers, environmental disasters, etc. A truly free market will always result in monopolies. A free market is a competition, but competitions have winners, and winners are monopolies.
America is supposed to be the land of the free
How can we be free if we are slaves to corporations?
a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision
Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them, it just makes it worse. If you truly want to help people and to make society healthy, you have to help people where they are at.
Because when we treat our bodies as God’s abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn’t an option.
That simply isn't an effective way of dealing with drug abuse.
And as kids have grown up without prayer, we’ve seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.
Correlation does not imply causation.
, in conjunction with secularism.
Secularism is not the problem here.
I looked up Georgism and learned what it’s all about, so thank you.
You are welcome.
I suspected as much.
So what are you doing in a conservative place? Did you come here just to pick a fight? I do enjoy our dialog, but the thing is called "conservative", so I expect everyone here to be some variant of conservative.
or else they become monopolies
Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.
slaves to corporations
Do you really believe that? We're all free to start our own companies, as I and most of my friends and family have at some point in our lives. That's the whole point of being an American. If you don't like your job, you're free to get another, and once you have some experience you can go into business for yourself. Nobody's a slave to a corporation. That's patently absurd.
Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them
Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?
Correlation does not imply causation.
True. It's a multifaceted set of problems for sure. I do think the elimination of school prayer was a root cause, but that hunch is impossible to prove.
Secularism is not the problem here.
Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.
In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that's 100% effective is salvation. The only reason it's not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity. But it works, and it works astonishingly well.
So what are you doing in a conservative place?
I'm here because I like talking with people I disagree with, I enjoy debate, and because this place would otherwise be an echo chamber. And echo chambers are a big part of why our country is so fucked right now.
Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.
That's one of the ways that monopolies are created, but not the only way.
Take a look at what Walmart did in the 90s and early 2000s. Walmart intentional set profits below the cost to produce their items, and in doing so the local competition could not beat their prices due to differences in business size, and so countless small businesses died. Then once all those businesses died Walmart drove their prices up.
Another way they become monopolies is by buying out the competition. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are good examples of this. Any time another tech business looks like it will become profitable or a competitor, they buy it up. From their they either kill it, or they incorporate it to get a wide monopoly. Either way they accomplish their goal of destroying competition.
Then there is the tall monopolies where the entire production chain is all owned by one company, from raw material to finished and sold product. Amazon is a good example of this. They used to only be a book marketplace, then an everything marketplace, and now they are a manufacturer as well. The Amazon Basics brand is replacing loads of items on their store.
None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation. It's all just capitalism. Now I will grant you that government regulation can also be a source of monopolies, but it is far from the only source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
https://open.lib.umn.edu/principleseconomics/chapter/10-1-the-nature-of-monopoly/
Do you really believe that?
Absolutely. We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do. They control the politicians, the regulation, what you can buy, where you can buy, what jobs are available, what housing you can live in, etc. And they spend every day doing everything in their power to expand that influence.
Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills. And even if you have all of that going for you, sometimes a big corporation will come buy and destroy your family business through no fault of your own.
And our freedom to move to another job is severely limited, and often moot. If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave. Choosing another corporation to effectively own you doesn't make you any more free when they are stepping on your neck at company A, B, C, all the way to Z.
Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?
You said that "a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision" so I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.
Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.
In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that’s 100% effective is salvation
Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?
Because the closest thing I can think of is the 12 step program, which has highly religious connections, often times outright christians ones, and yet their success rate is no better than chance.
The only reason it’s not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity.
I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.
I’m here because I like talking with people I disagree with
I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum. I can't speak for the moderator or anyone else here, but coming from reddit I expect this to be a place for conservatives to come together and build upon a shared perspective of the world.
None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation.
Completely false. Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC, including quarterly earnings reports. Moreover federal international trade agreements and laws regarding imports and exports, including tax laws, deeply impact both Walmart and Amazon. A proper reply would be book-length, but suffice it to say every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.
We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do.
Corporations are people. They are literally people. Have you never worked in a corporation? They're not some kind of mythical beast. They're just every-day Americans working for a living.
Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills.
Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit. There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country, and more appear every day. It sounds like you're just not trying hard enough. Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.
If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave.
You have absolutely no clue what slavery is. That's bizarre. Normal commercial life in a free market is about as far away from slavery as possible. You can become a billionaire or a beach bum, or anything in between. It's completely up to you, and nobody's going to come around and whip you to death if you don't get back to work.
when they are stepping on your neck
What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.
I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
The two relevant cases are Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).
Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.
Wow, no. What? Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear. Through Christ alone can we receive freedom from sin, and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will. Oppression happens when we lack that freedom. You have it precisely backwards.
Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?
Well, a web search turned up this as the first result:
[…], we conclude that the value of faith-oriented approaches to substance abuse prevention and recovery is indisputable. And, by extension, we also conclude that the decline in religious affiliation in the USA is not only a concern for religious organizations but constitutes a national health concern.
I haven't read that whole study, and I don't know their methodology, so they may well cite an efficacy below 100%. Personally I arrive at 100% by deduction: those who are saved evidence their salvation by being shielded from temptation to abuse drugs, while anyone lacking that evidence is clearly not yet saved.
Whatever the methodology, though, claiming that "their success rate is no better than chance" is a lie based on a downright anti-Christian bias.
I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.
It is the sick who need a physician. Medical professionals (like most other people) generally avoid proselytizing to everyone under all professional circumstances.
Well, a web search turned up this as the first result:
That's a meta study, and the only study they cite which mentions any control group only controls for depression. None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.
Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.
Personally I arrive at 100% by deduction
The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:
"In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs."
Additionally your study cites this graph:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759672/bin/10943_2019_876_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Now it has been a while since my last statistics class, so I don't recall the exact methodology to determine likelyhood of causality between these two lines, however just from a quick glance these two rates seem to have a low/medium correlation. They wander closer and farther apart over the 20 years of this graph, and it seems that the drug death rate precedes the religious affiliation rate, which is the reverse of what we would expect if religious affiliation was causing drug deaths.
This all has made me curious enough to do some napkin math myself. Now this is incredibly terrible methodology, but if what you say is true then it should be apparent. I charted countries by irreligiosity, christianity, and drug use, and it doesn't look like there is any correlation:
https://i.imgur.com/VR58Byw.png
This is a graph of irreligiosity vs drug use. There isn't much of a correlation here if any. If being an atheist/agnostic/none/etc made you more likely to be a drug user, we should expect a nice smooth rise in drug use correlated with atheism. But that's not what happens here in this chart.
https://i.imgur.com/V9HHLBl.png
This chart is basically the same thing, but ordered by how christian each country is. If christianity/Jesus/god was anywhere close to 100% efficicacy against drug use, we should expect to see a similarly nice smooth graph, correlating drug use inversely with christianity. But that's also not what happens here.
So if you're right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don't we see trends that support that?
Here is where I pulled the data from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/drug-use-by-countryWhatever the methodology, though, claiming that "their success rate is no better than chance" is a lie based on a downright anti-Christian bias.
I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that. However it isn't a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance. I'll see if I can find it another time when I get the chance. For now this has already been a lot to compile, especially the two charts I made.
None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.
Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.
The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:
"In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs."
Once again, we seem to be talking past each other. That 33% does not apply to what I meant.
I'll try to explain more clearly.
- A drug abuser is someone who does not understand that their body is meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
- The attendance of religious services is not a condition of salvation.
- To be saved, one must accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and repent.
- Once saved, and born again, one's behavior exhibits noticeable changes.
- One such change resulting from salvation is usually a desire to attend religious services.
- Another such change resulting from salvation is the view of one's body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, not to be polluted with drugs.
- Another such change resulting from salvation is the ability to pray to Jesus that we may be shielded from temptation, so if one is tempted to sin with drug abuse, that temptation may be overcome through prayer.
So if you're right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don't we see trends that support that?
Thank you for your charts and your deductions. I appreciate your effort to communicate those ideas.
The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation. 100% of those saved are able to successfully pray to be shielded from temptation to sin, and are thereby able to overcome their drug addictions. Anyone who claims a religious affiliation but is unable to kick their nasty drug habit has clearly not yet been saved. This is how we can deduce 100% as a priori knowledge.
I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that.
Thank you for admitting bias! I wish that was commonplace. I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.
However it isn't a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance.
I'll read it if you find it, but I don't think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.
The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation.
And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates. A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?
If so you can understand that these charts should still show the effect.
I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.
I could help you with that if you like lol.
I'll read it if you find it, but I don't think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.
If I recall, it was simply looking at recidivism rates for members of AA.
And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates.
Not necessarily. Churches have struggled to retain members for various reasons. A Christian may feel disaffected of his local denominational institution, while maintaining absolute loyalty to God. The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it's a Venn diagram.
A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?
I suppose it depends on how you define "Christian", but the standard definition is equivalent to "one who has been saved", so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.
I also needed to split this up, so this is part 1.
I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum.
I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.
Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC
every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.
While true, that doesn't change anything. Corporations can still be monopolies while being legal if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies.
Corporations are people. They are literally people.
Corporations are organizations of people. But regardless of what you define them as, people or organizations, you cannot have freedom if corporations control everything. Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).
Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit.
You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.
There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country
And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery. Sure people win the lottery all the time, but that doesn't mean everyone will.
Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.
I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.
You have absolutely no clue what slavery is.
I am using hyperbole. I am not stating that what we experience in America is literal chattel slavery. The point is that you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive. You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?
What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.
I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life. We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.
And I'm not going to address the "real job" part because that is a true scottsman fallacy waiting to happen. I will tell you this, I have never read Marx, I do not label myself a marxists, and I have had several jobs over the years at this point.
The two relevant cases are Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).
Ok, then I take back what I said when I though you were referencing Robinson v California/punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts. I should have clarified which decision you meant first. I think we already know where we both stand on religion in schools, so I will move on.
Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear.
Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.
and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will
The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Reply to "just my opinion", Part 1 of 2:
I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.
I thought the Capitalism vs Socialism subreddit was pretty great, though I didn't spend a ton of time there, and I was mostly a lurker. But on several occasions I was impressed by the level of discourse there.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural. In practice, though, there's not many of them. Usually they're owned by a municipality, such as water supply for urban folks who lack their own wells, and waste processing for the same folks who lack septic tanks. Physical constraints make competition difficult in these markets.
Most large corporations are groups that grow vastly larger than their natural size due to government assistance and encouragement.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses. Consider our founding culture in the Eighteenth Century; the big multinational companies were the Dutch East India Trading Co and the East India Co, both of which were state-chartered monopolies. By contrast, the nascent US flourished with only tiny businesses and family farms. That is our natural business culture, to which we should strive to return.
Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).
Apples and oranges.
- A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
- A company offers products and services for sale in a marketplace, which people are free to buy if they want, or not to buy if they don't want. A company may employ people in a voluntary arrangement where employees sell their labor to the company for a fair price, and are free to seek employment elsewhere for a better price if they so choose.
When you picture a company, think of a man with a fruit cart selling fresh fruit at a farmer's market — that's the quintessential company. His family are back home picking fruit on the family farm, while he heads to market to compete against the other vendors. Customers are free to compare which fruit vendor offers the freshest fruit, and buy a little, or a lot, or none at all.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor, who offers you a fresh apricot for 7¢, to a blood-thirsty dictator who proclaims "everyone must placate those afflicted with gender dysphoria, on penalty of death" is a strain of the imagination. A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.
True, but so? You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery.
It's fundamentally different. The lottery is pure chance, while building a business is a measure of one's intelligence and drive to succeed.
I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.
It's hardly a fantasy. It's the American way. And it's hardly "la la land". Have you never started your own business?
you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive.
What do you mean by "abusive"? Big bad boss man said you need to show up on time, or else you'll get fired? No jobs are abusive. They're voluntary agreements for the sale of one's labor. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural.
It's definitely hard, but not impossible.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses.
Historically that is not true. What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
And armed forces aren't the only way authoritarians control the people, they also do so through law, which the corporations control.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations. Google, microsoft, amazon, meta, etc.
A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
When the United Fruit Company toppled governments in latin america, they were in fact not practicioners of freedom. Companies are just as capable of subverting the will of the people and destroying freedoms as dictators.
You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Have you never started your own business?
I am already struggling to pay for rent, food, and utility bills, and soon my student debt will add to that. I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
What do you mean by "abusive"?
I'm talking about violations of labor laws that go unpunished, workplace injuries, poverty wages, excessive hours, repetitive strain injury, wage theft.
https://www.greenamerica.org/choose-fair-labor/us-companies-exploiting-workers
https://apnews.com/article/how-companies-rip-off-poor-employees-6c5364b4f9c69d9bc1b0093519935a5a
https://hbr.org/2020/06/times-up-for-toxic-workplaces
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
Then it sounds like you're lucky.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?
What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples. I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
Yeah no. Read the wiki on banana republics. From the intro:
[…] thus, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, […]
Their governments instigate and enable their problem.
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations.
It seems we're in general agreement that small family owned businesses are far preferable to mega-corporations. (After all, we're both here in the Fediverse.)
Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Again, you focused on negativity to the exclusion of truth. The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us. The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.
A good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars … (I'm joking, but my above point is true.)
I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money, or perhaps just a few dollars. Going back to my fruit cart example, it doesn't cost any money to pick fruit and sell it. And there are a ton of sub-$100 sweaty-startup ideas out there. You may not have the time or the drive to start one, but you certainly have the money.
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all. Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.
Then it sounds like you're lucky.
"Lucky" is not the right word. I didn't grow up here. I've lived in a bunch of places, from urban to suburban, and now rural. I moved here because I like the area and the people here. And there are plenty of local small businesses I support as much as I can.
Reply to "just my opinion", Part 2 of 2:
I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life.
My proverbial fresh fruit vendor mentions to me that he's struggling to keep up with demand, so I tell him I can help him sell his fruit, and I'll do it for a 15% commission. He bargains me down to 10%, and we have an agreement. He tells me which hours he's open and I tell him I sell his fruit 24/7. After a few months, he tells me I should wear a more professional looking shirt, and I reply that his sales are up 30% MoM with me running sales, but if he really wants to control my wardrobe I'll go sell for the competing fruit stand over there. How's exactly am I being controlled? I'm not; I'm in control of my own labor, selling it at an agreeable rate.
You also mentioned that corporations control politicians. To the degree that's true, it's only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so. If we could stick to the 10th Amendment and return the government to its proper 18th Century size, there'd be nothing for lobbyists to do. The federal government should be responsible for almost nothing. It should be tiny. That's the root of the problem you blame on corporations. Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.
I'm not sure what the "world freedom index" is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. Big-government policies have eroded limits on government, public spending continues to rise, and the regulatory burden on business has increased. Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of “free” will require significant changes to reduce the size and scope of government.
Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.
When I say "secularism", I'm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.
Which is to say, we can really talk past each other sometimes.
The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
What a libertine and hedonistic notion of freedom. It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Our culture's founding document is built upon a theological proposition:
[…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, […]
Our entire culture is built upon that, a theological proposition.
And if you read all of the old American documents, almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don't even recognize if you're an atheist. Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation. God is our purpose for being, our purpose for living, and our purpose for freedom. That would not have been a contentious assertion in the past.
it's only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
That's the root of the problem you blame on corporations.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
I'm not sure what the "world freedom index" is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind, but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs, corporate control, etc.
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
When I say "secularism", I'm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership
I don't want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn't anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don't believe in Satan either.
It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation.
I'll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law. Only the constitution is the head of american law and it doesn't say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don't even recognize if you're an atheist.
I've spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
A couple of problems that make this incorrect:
- A nit-pick that I find distracting: The phrase "the Fed" always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know that's not what you meant.
- I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be. There were no taxes to fund anything, aside from nominal excise taxes on imports. There were no agencies, at all — none. That's our natural federal government size. They barely had any power at all, because American government is meant to be bottom-up, with families and townships having the most power, and the federal government the least.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.
The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:
- The Interstate Commerce Clause
- The Necessary and Proper Clause
Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don't all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people's liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind,
Agreed!
but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs,
Agreed!
corporate control
No!
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
Agreed!
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 2 of 2:
I don't want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn't anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people "seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." The article also notes that:
The term "secularism" has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
That's awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don't believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesn't exist. You're in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
You're either with God or you're against Him. That's a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you're unaware that you're doing so — and even if you think that's impossible — that's what you're doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I'll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…which I rebutted. I wonder if you're missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law.
It's the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I can't overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
I've spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? ("Neither" would be an invalid answer.)
That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you’re right.
Yes, it is, but from my anecdotal experience it's generally true.
Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it’s to feed your family? No, that’s still murder.
Immigrants aren't slaughtering people for food though. They cross the border (legally and illegally) and work hard at some job or their own business to put food on the table.
Now we’re not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.
My point is that it isn't an immoral action and therefore cannot be inherently immoral. A law isn't just simply because it is a law. And breaking a law isn't always an immoral action. For example, the people who funneled jews out of Nazi germany were breaking the law, and they were doing the moral thing despite breaking the law.
It’s why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I’d like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.
I think the money that would be used for such a thing would be better put to use by fixing the immigration system to allow for good hard working people to quickly, easily, and cheaply become American citizens. These people will find a way to immigrate no matter what barrier you put in front of them, physical or otherwise. We may as well have a better control over the situation.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
That's it's own huge conversation so I will split that into it's own chain.
I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that’s suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.
That's not really feasible though. Latin American countries have corrupt politicians built into their governments at every level, and those politicians prevent any harm to the cartels. And not many people are willing to physically fight the cartels to begin with because it puts their families in greater risk than they otherwise would be.
And even assuming these countries somehow accomplished their goal of destroying the existing cartels, new ones would just pop right back up because of the stupid amount of money to be made off of drug trade.
But the word “systemic” generally means invisible and imagined.
That's the conservative definition of the word, not the definition intended by leftists. When I say systemic, I mean something closer to this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systemic racism
You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn’t happened in a very long time in the US.
Things like this happen all the time. I just highlighted that one because it is a particularly famous example.
And the fact that the WW2 vet loan thing happened a while ago doesn't diminish the effects. A house is one of the biggest ways wealth is transferred between generations, and that means it impacts today's generations too.
We can tank the economy for all I care. I don’t find the argument compelling.
So if something is good for the economy and has little downsides, ethically or otherwise, you do not find it worth doing?
