Natlist1: Hi, are you busy right now?
KEVIN4VFT: Not too. Don't be dismayed if it takes a few seconds for me to return a response. :-)
Natlist1: All right, I was just going to post on the VFT group, but thought that certain questions would be better answered in person.
KEVIN4VFT: Well, if not, I hope you'll post. I need to get a few posts in order to keep the group from being declared inactive. But I think it will be OK. I got a letter from a student which I just sent to the list with my reply, so I think we have enough posts.
KEVIN4VFT: Go ahead, shoot!
Natlist1: While I always thought I could understand a Christian theocratic anarchist position, I never thought it could be reconciled with libertarian economics, what is your justification for laissez-faire?
Natlist1: I might post anyway, if you don't mind, if I think the discussion would be beneficial for all to hear.
KEVIN4VFT: What is the possible justification for NOT laissez-fairing? L-F means "let us work out things ourselves." What right does the state have to interfere? None, I say. The State can only fund its actions by theft, and all its actions are coercion which cannot be Biblically justified.
KEVIN4VFT: Yes, I think it would be of interest.
Natlist1: I know very well your views on the State, but what about anarcho-socialism (why is private property to be so protected?)?
Natlist1: In the Acts of Apostles, the followers of the early church held possessions in common
Natlist1: The market, too, coerces
KEVIN4VFT: I'm not against it.
Creationist Anarcho-Socialism
I don't have a right to take what you call your property, but I have an obligation to society to use my property charitably.

KEVIN4VFT: How does the market coerce? If there's no State? Impossible by definition.
Natlist1: Not at all. Do you think tyranny disappears with the State?
KEVIN4VFT: It is certainly cut down. The only way for the State to disappear is massive wide-spread conversion to the ways of the Prince of Peace.
KEVIN4VFT: I can't imagine tyranny w/o a State
Natlist1: If all is owned by the private sector, and determined by market forces, those with power will decide for those without, and in capitalism, they decide based on the profit motive, which is immoral.
KEVIN4VFT: "Decide" ?
Decide what?
KEVIN4VFT: The whole point of the free market is that all decisions are voluntary. Everyone decides for himself.
Natlist1: Tyranny--use of power to further one's own worldly interests. The essence of socialism's rise in the 19th century was a reaction against the tyranny of a few individuals, unregulated by the state.
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: Tyranny--use of power to further one's own worldly interests.
No, tyranny is always against someone.
KEVIN4VFT: Bill Gates is not a tyrant
KEVIN4VFT: 19th century socialists:
wealth was a result of state protection.
KEVIN4VFT: Wealthy obtained positions of power in the State and protected themselves from competitors.
KEVIN4VFT: State is always used by powerful to tyrannize
Natlist1: And all decisions are voluntary under the State, but if you do not comply, you may be punished according to the law/opinion of a judge. All decisions are voluntary under capitalism, but if you are without power, you are forced to comply with common standards or wither away.
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: And all decisions are voluntary under the State,
What?!?
KEVIN4VFT: No one is "forced" to wither away.
Natlist1: Whether or not Gates is a tyrant, that is debatable, but the usurers who charge 20% interest on the poor, they are tyrants.
KEVIN4VFT: No one has his resources forcibly taken from him
-- in the free market
KEVIN4VFT: I oppose usury.
But no one is "forced" to borrow.
Natlist1: If you are without power (and born without privilege/high intelligence), then you are compelled to act according to those who have power, who can dominate you
Natlist1: No one is forced to comply with the law any more than one in poverty may be forced to borrow.
Natlist1: The "wrong" choice either way can result in a death sentence.
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: If you are without power (and born without privilege/high intelligence), then you are compelled to act according to those who have power, who can dominate you
This isn't the "fault" of the gas station owner who hires some underpriviledged fellow to pump gas. He's doing the guy a favor.
KEVIN4VFT: "Domination" is a function of immorality and lack of Christ-like ethics, not wealth.
KEVIN4VFT: The answer is morality, not redistribution of wealth or creation of political power.
Natlist1: But a certain distribution of wealth is immoral.
KEVIN4VFT: There is absolutely nothing immoral about Bill Gate's 80Billioin.
Natlist1: All morality does not concern sexual matters, and right to life
KEVIN4VFT: The fact that someone has wealth and another does not is not immoral.
Natlist1: No, that is immoral, because millions starve in Africa while he cannot imagine all his assets
Natlist1: And he gets more and more, and whom does it serve?
KEVIN4VFT: Africa suffers from lack of Christianity, not a lack of wealth. You're missing the root causes of these problems. Creating political power to forcibly take from those who are producers and giving to those who are not is indefensible.
KEVIN4VFT: I agree that Gates has a social responsibility to share, but if he doesn't sense that obligation, it is immoral of me to put a gun to his head and take his money and do what *I* think he should do with it.
Natlist1: Africa suffers from poverty as well. The producers do not include stocktraders.
KEVIN4VFT: Stock traders perform a valuable function for the market. Giving Africa wealth will feed them for a day, they'll be starving tomorrow. if you CONTINUALLY take from the rich, many will simpy stop producing and join the takers. (the state)
Natlist1: No, that would assume that private property is a higher right than basic human needs. Even though these human needs must first be fulfilled for a regular life to ensue
Natlist1: The West exploited many of Africa's resources already
KEVIN4VFT: Private property does not rank higher than charity, but that's something Bill Gates must come to understand. It is immoral for me to steal from him
KEVIN4VFT: The west has hardly even TOUCHED africa. That continent has so much it's not funny. Barely even touched.
Natlist1: You call it theft, but who gave him what he has?
KEVIN4VFT: Millions of consumers, voluntarily.
KEVIN4VFT: \He did not tax it.
Natlist1: The environment of society, and his talents rendered him by the Lord made Gates' achievements possible. Not least in a theocracy, should people not enrich themselves by their talents.
Natlist1: We are unequal from birth, but all serve a role in the organic society. When some use their abilities for worldly profit, that is immoral, not taxing it (for what good does the money do the man anyway?).
KEVIN4VFT: Gates is going to be spending the rest of his life giving away billions of dollars through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Creating the political machinery of extortion and redistribution will line the pockets of bureaucrats and barely touch the poor.
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: When some use their abilities for worldly profit, that is immoral

I don't understand this, or else I flat out disagree with it
Natlist1: I cannot argue for bureaucracy in its current state. I am not defending the corrupt modern society of today, but theoretically, capitalist inequality of wealth has no Christian basis.
Natlist1: Do you disagree that men are unequal from birth?
KEVIN4VFT: I'm back. Give me a second
Natlist1: OK
KEVIN4VFT: Yes unequal from birth
KEVIN4VFT: The State cannot equalize, should not try.
KEVIN4VFT: Each producer has a responsibilty to use his gifts as God directs.
KEVIN4VFT: We must not relieve them of that responsibilty.
Natlist1: The State cannot make man SOCIALLY (and thus, POLITICALLY) equal.
KEVIN4VFT: Nor economically
Natlist1: Economically, it can be done.
However, those who are blessed with talent have two choices for leadership, one manages society for the good of all and not in self-interest, and the other uses one's own talents for profit and to amass worldly possessions. Is the latter not immoral?
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: Economically, it can be done.
Yes, and the state CAN kill all Jews. It ought not to do this.
Natlist1: It ought not to kill people, nor to let them be killed.
Natlist1: Equating taxation with murder is indefensible
KEVIN4VFT: Bill Gates used his talents to profit and amass worldly possessions. This is not immoral. Give me chapter and verse.

It's a DANGER, but not in itself immoral.
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: Equating taxation with murder is indefensible
Both are immoral, that's all I meant.
KEVIN4VFT: In the free market people can only get rich by serving theneeds of lots of consumers.

Natlist1: The entire spirit of the New Testament. "The pursuit of money is a root of all evil". "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven" . . .
Natlist1: The materialistic "needs" of consumers. (Whereas you consider taking loans on true needs on behalf of the poor "voluntary")
Natlist1: "You cannot serve both God and mammon"
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: The entire spirit of the New Testament.
These are warnings against TRUSTING in riches. Bill Gates has been motivated by his technological curiosity in trying to make computers work more efficiently. He's a geek, not a tyrant. His inventions just happened to serve the needs of millions of people and they paid him for his gifts. This is all good. Now he's set up a foundation to give all the profits away. More good. I think it's pathological to find evil in this. Nothing personal. :-)
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: "You cannot serve both God and mammon"

Then why give any of it to the poor?
Natlist1: And I hesitated in the beginning to call Gates a tyrant. But I still claim that it is immoral to sit on $90Billion
KEVIN4VFT: Give him a chance! I think the fortune snuck up on him. He's going to give most of it away.
Natlist1: I am not for making the poor into the rich, but people have to have basic necessities to live (I did not say Gates should give his money away to American charities, I said to the starving in Africa)
Natlist1: You become a barbarian without necessities
Natlist1: OK, my point is not against Gates anyway, it is theoretical
KEVIN4VFT: All of his wealth at this point is only on paper.

No, you have it backwards.
You don't have necessities if you are a barbarian
KEVIN4VFT: God gives poverty to those who rebel against Him.
KEVIN4VFT: The key is not relieving them of their poverty, but of their rebellion.
Natlist1: No, you think that is why Africa is poor?
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: "You cannot serve both God and mammon"

You have no theory if you have no concrete examples. You have no theory if you have no pattern of economic tyranny.
KEVIN4VFT: Oops. Wrong quote
Natlist1: OK, my point is not against Gates anyway, it is theoretical
KEVIN4VFT: That quote
KEVIN4VFT: If not gates, then who?
KEVIN4VFT: Who proves the theory?
KEVIN4VFT: Is Donald trump your only example?
Completely Reorganize society and invest a few with lethal force andpolitical power because of a handful of ogres?
KEVIN4VFT: The overwhelming majority of wealthy are "good" people who would be better in an Anarcho-Theocracy.
Natlist1: There is a pattern of economic tyranny, I think Gates is involved but I cannot be sure (as indeed his wealth "snuck up on him"). The entire financial-business class increases their own profits at astoundingly high rates, even as the wages of their workers stagnate (for they have the power). Of course, they do not give their money away to Africa either.
Natlist1: No, the capitalist wealthy are by and large full of tyrannical personalities.

I still want to hear your ideas about poverty
KEVIN4VFT: Natlist1: No, the capitalist wealthy are by and large full of tyrannical personalities.

Let's list names and tally the score.
Natlist1: Name the CEOs of large companies.
Natlist1: I don't understand, you said that poverty is God's punishment for rebellion?
KEVIN4VFT: Have you ever read Chilton's book
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators?
Natlist1: no
KEVIN4VFT: Click here for downloadable book http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21b6_47e.htm
KEVIN4VFT: This book is very good.
KEVIN4VFT: We might want to go through it line by line.
Natlist1: Maybe I will, I cannot go to it now on this computer, but I will copy the hyperlink. Thanks.
Natlist1: Have you ever read Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, or any Christian socialist thinking?
KEVIN4VFT: You think Tawney is a socialist?
Natlist1: Yes, he was
KEVIN4VFT: Yeah, I've read a few
Natlist1: He held powerful positions in the Labour Party
KEVIN4VFT: It's like creation-evolution. Once you see the broad outlines of the dispute, you don't need to read any more.
Natlist1: Indeed
KEVIN4VFT: I got more pro-capitalist stuff out of his book. I think Capitalism is Christian
KEVIN4VFT: I guess I didn't know too much about him personally
Natlist1: Captialism cannot recognise religions, or ethics, or culture. It is a permanent revolution, if anything were so conducive to atheism and materialism, it is capitalism, I assure you.
Natlist1: Look what it did to Christmas
KEVIN4VFT: I like capitalist Christmas
http://members.aol.com/xmaspiracy/commerce.htm
Natlist1: Being on the east coast, I should go to bed now. Would you mind if I just pasted this whole conversation on a posting? I think it presented two sides of Christian thinking in near perfection
KEVIN4VFT: Sure!
Post it on the VFT list

      vft@eGroups.com

rather than the theocracy list.
Natlist1: Yeah, sure. God bless and have a good evening.
KEVIN4VFT: Nice talkin atcha!
KEVIN4VFT: Get some sleep!
Natlist1: Okay, talk to you later, bye