Peter's Pence just another sticky fingered "charity".

[miles]

Francis keeps saying these kinds of things have been fixed. Vatican keeps condemning the whistleblowers.
What is the matter with people? Can't we just move on?
Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -book.html

[133743Hokie]

At least the current Pope is trying to straighten it all out.

[VisorBoy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

[miles]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

[VisorBoy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

[miles]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

The moral element to climate change? Unfettered capitalism? Step away from crack pipe, son.
We agree that more time and effort are required to deal with the rotten elements in the church. Less political posturing would be helpful also.

[awesome guy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

[emoji38] Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

[VisorBoy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

The moral element to climate change? Unfettered capitalism? Step away from crack pipe, son.
We agree that more time and effort are required to deal with the rotten elements in the church. Less political posturing would be helpful also.

If science tells us that X is happening, and then should X continue to happen, that Y will occur. And if X is not good, and Y is VERY not good, then yes there is a moral prerogative to talk about slowing/stopping X to prevent Y.

[VisorBoy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

[emoji38] Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by Christian definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

[awesome guy]

Der Pope has spoken ex cathedra about climate change and that greedy capitalism is to blame. Let's focus on that, not what is behind the curtain.

That is not accurate. Ex cathedra declarations have been made on only 2 occasions in history: the Immaculate Conception & the Assumption of Mary.

The Pope's words on moral teachings (e.g. respect for nature, etc) are to be respected and followed by Catholics. However, one can reasonably disagree with his environmental science & policy recommendations after understanding the encyclical's point of view. After all, the Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science & policy.

Note: this isn't to say that the Pope should not teach about issues of the day. In fact, he absolutely should. It just means that the Church recognizes its God-given authority is limited to matters of faith and morals.

[emoji38] Need some help getting the hook, line and sinker out of your stomach? Consult your local sarcasm specialist.

You stumbled into a truth at the end, however. The Pope's domain is faith and morality, not science and policy. Sadly, this Pope needs a reminder. The Pope's misplaced political views are inappropriate in an encyclical. His house is made of glass, and built on sand.

I know you're Catholic. You haven't paid attention and don't know, but so am I; and I am profoundly disturbed by the rot in the church.
This pope should be focused on the beam in his eye, not the speck in others'. Capiche?

There is a moral element to climate change, which I think the Pope was addressing. And unfettered capitalism is also a moral issue. He can and should write about those two.

Agree about the bank issues and the priest abuse, which both need to be continually addressed. The Pope has been working on these, but more effort and time will be required.

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

[VisorBoy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

[miles]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

VisorBoy, I recommend that you go back to school and this time get an education.
Look up the definition of unfettered, then come back and tell us about the immoral practice of unfettered capitalism in the U.S. today. What is immoral is the unfettered manure being broadcast by lefty socialists about how immoral capitalism is. Read the constitution. Learn the law.

[VisorBoy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

VisorBoy, I recommend that you go back to school and this time get an education.
Look up the definition of unfettered, then come back and tell us about the immoral practice of unfettered capitalism in the U.S. today. What is immoral is the unfettered manure being broadcast by lefty socialists about how immoral capitalism is. Read the constitution. Learn the law.

Where do you get your understanding of unfettered from? Does it not mean without government intrusion and regulation/labor law?

[awesome guy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

Most everyone does except you radicals. Besides, capitalism isn't a lack of regulations so you're definition and perspective is whacky and extreme. Unregulated is anarchy which isn't a synonym for capitalism.

Your moral argument is still bogus and odd.

[VisorBoy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

Most everyone does except you radicals. Besides, capitalism isn't a lack of regulations so you're definition and perspective is whacky and extreme. Unregulated is anarchy which isn't a synonym for capitalism.

Your moral argument is still bogus and odd.

If you're suggesting that capitalism without regulation and labor law is suboptimal, then we are in complete agreement.

[awesome guy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

Most everyone does except you radicals. Besides, capitalism isn't a lack of regulations so you're definition and perspective is whacky and extreme. Unregulated is anarchy which isn't a synonym for capitalism.

Your moral argument is still bogus and odd.

If you're suggesting that capitalism without regulation and labor law is suboptimal, then we are in complete agreement.

I'm correcting your erroneous definition of capitalism as the absence of law.

[miles]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by definition, immoral.

Don't misunderstand me, capitalism of course CAN be morally practiced. But without any restraint or regulation, we get what history presents us is its ultimate result: child labor, horrible working conditions, a few very rich with a sizable poor population, etc.

That's a load of manure. Not just the historical context but asserting that regulation is a Christian and thusly moral imperative. And you have the audacity to call others radical while pitching this out there? It's very extreme and very wrong.

I don't know of anyone on this board (besides Marine) who promotes unfettered capitalism. 99.9% of the country believes in some form of economic regulation.

Also, if you think that lack of labor laws is a good thing compared to labor laws (any, that is), then I think this debate is self-limited.

Finally, I merely stated that a system which not only promotes greed, but relies on it for its very existence, can be used (if unfettered) by immoral people to do immoral things. That is why unfettered capitalism is wrong when there is no one policing things. You end up with oligarchies and worse.

I perhaps overstated my argument. Unfettered capitalism isn't immoral on its own. If people practiced it without taking advantage of others, and still cared for the people without work or without the capability to work, then it would be good. But, as we know, that is just as idealistic as communism.

Most everyone does except you radicals. Besides, capitalism isn't a lack of regulations so you're definition and perspective is whacky and extreme. Unregulated is anarchy which isn't a synonym for capitalism.

Your moral argument is still bogus and odd.

If you're suggesting that capitalism without regulation and labor law is suboptimal, then we are in complete agreement.

I'm correcting your erroneous definition of capitalism as the absence of law.

VisorBoy prefers the unfettered fundraising proceeds from Peter's Pence filtered through the sticky fingers of moral men with a tuppence awarded here and there to the truly destitute. After all, there's no controlling legal authority, just the Vatican. It's for a good cause, and that makes him "feel" better.
"Unfettered" capitalism is bad, Vatican capitalism is good.
[sarcasm note]

[awesome guy]

VisorBoy prefers the unfettered fundraising proceeds from Peter's Pence filtered through the sticky fingers of moral men with a tuppence awarded here and there to the truly destitute. After all, there's no controlling legal authority, just the Vatican. It's for a good cause, and that makes him "feel" better.
"Unfettered" capitalism is bad, Vatican capitalism is good.

Yep. It's rather radical too to expect the people hiding corruption and pedophiles to be moral authorities over even more money. Flat out ignorant to refuse to see the exact same corruption in the federal government, the people enriching themselves in the name of charity. Just like the priests living in multimillion dollar mansions while also living under a vow of poverty, the people in DC turn their 140k salaries into multimillion dollar empires. While many, especially the democrats, enter congress rich and leave filthy rich, others like Harry Reid entered as a hundred thousandnaire and is leaving worth tens of millions. "Good intentions" keeps them from wondering how that happens. 140k really isn't that much, like hillary turning 10k into millions in cattle futures. It's rampant corruption to those with the slightest curiosity about the operations of the government. And also why Christ commanded us as individuals to care for the poor and be generous. Never create a government to act charitably on our behalf. People following the teachings of Christ resist this for we know what Christ actually commanded in these regards. Or to answer Kasich's riddle of "what will I tell Christ that I did for the poor?" Well John, assuming you're not just funnelling the money into your own bank account as happens with all other politicians, the answer is another question. What I do I tell Christ? You, John Kasich, have taken my money and thusly deny me the opportunity to show my generosity. So at best only John can answer that he did something since he took so much from the rest of us to make his spiritual dreams a reality. The rest of us are denied the opportunity or are expected to give even more on top of the 50% the various governments are already taking from us. So we're not doing a damn thing since the self appointed dick heads are robbing us blind. Their unchristian approach makes it more difficult for actual Christians to practice their faith.

[RiverguyVT]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by Christian definition, immoral

Congrats for falling for the (false) left wing propagandized definition of capitalism. I have only a bushel of potatoes. You have only a bushel of apples. We agree as free men, uncoerced, to trade a dozen of each for the other. We both come out ahead. That's not greed. But it is capitalism, unfettered. I could argue that it is the "fettering" which you propose which is abhorrently immoral.

[VisorBoy]

Any system based solely on greed with no systemic check to said greed is, by Christian definition, immoral

Congrats for falling for the (false) left wing propagandized definition of capitalism. I have only a bushel of potatoes. You have only a bushel of apples. We agree as free men, uncoerced, to trade a dozen of each for the other. We both come out ahead. That's not greed. But it is capitalism, unfettered. I could argue that it is the "fettering" which you propose which is abhorrently immoral.

I changed my claim, admitting I overstated it.

How do you fine "fettering"? I consider unfettered capitalism as including monopolies (if that's what the market evolves to) and no labor laws, etc. In those cases, it is important for regulations to prevent that from happening.

[BigDave]

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Capitalism is arguably amoral (meaning it does not have a moral component).

Godless capitalism is no better than godless communism.

And devotion to money is not a good thing.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

[awesome guy]

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Capitalism is arguably amoral (meaning it does not have a moral component).

Godless capitalism is no better than godless communism.

And devotion to money is not a good thing.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Devotion to money isn't a good thing. But saying capitalism is greed is just commie speak. Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest. Commies reveal their hearts saying that means screwing everyone over to maximize profits. But it really means as it states, doing what's in your best interest, as you define them. If you are as the so called robber barons then that means philanthropy as they ended up giving away their fortunes to aide the poor. Or it can mean supporting your church however you feel is best. Or charity or charitable acts. There's no direct inference that capitalism means being Scrooge McDuck. But even if that's their choice, it's still their choice. No other human has a right to that money, to redistribute it, to create a powerful government so that crooked elitists take over control of the funds. It belongs to the individual to do as they wish. And our past shows that meant more charity and more aid without also enabling the lazy and leeches. It worked better because the money was controlled by those who best managed it. And that includes them also being generous and giving. The ideas from the commies that there were dead people lying in the streets just never happened. Even in the great depression, it was soup kitchens and charities that aided the poor and those suffering. The giant federal apparatus didn't exist at that time as the federal government was a shadow of what it is now. Capitalism isn't a synonym for greed or the worst in human nature. You see that in the statist as they really just steal the money for themselves while giving the poor just enough to continue being poor AND dependent on them to survive. IE, votes for free stuff. Very unChristian and unethical.

[VisorBoy]

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Capitalism is arguably amoral (meaning it does not have a moral component).

Godless capitalism is no better than godless communism.

And devotion to money is not a good thing.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Devotion to money isn't a good thing. But saying capitalism is greed is just commie speak. Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest. Commies reveal their hearts saying that means screwing everyone over to maximize profits. But it really means as it states, doing what's in your best interest, as you define them. If you are as the so called robber barons then that means philanthropy as they ended up giving away their fortunes to aide the poor. Or it can mean supporting your church however you feel is best. Or charity or charitable acts. There's no direct inference that capitalism means being Scrooge McDuck. But even if that's their choice, it's still their choice. No other human has a right to that money, to redistribute it, to create a powerful government so that crooked elitists take over control of the funds. It belongs to the individual to do as they wish. And our past shows that meant more charity and more aid without also enabling the lazy and leeches. It worked better because the money was controlled by those who best managed it. And that includes them also being generous and giving. The ideas from the commies that there were dead people lying in the streets just never happened. Even in the great depression, it was soup kitchens and charities that aided the poor and those suffering. The giant federal apparatus didn't exist at that time as the federal government was a shadow of what it is now. Capitalism isn't a synonym for greed or the worst in human nature. You see that in the statist as they really just steal the money for themselves while giving the poor just enough to continue being poor AND dependent on them to survive. IE, votes for free stuff. Very unChristian and unethical.

I didn't say "capitalism is greed". I said it is driven by greed. And you admitted so yourself, "Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest". When there is no systemic limitation to doing what's in one's best interest, then greed (and even no feeling of greed) can lead to truly unjust results (monopolies, child labor, etc).

As I said earlier, we don't have a disagreement that unfettered capitalism is a bad idea because humans are humans and some will manipulate it if given the chance. You agreed when you classified it as anarcho-capitalism and said you didn't support that. Again, we're in agreement there.

Unfettered capitalism is amoral, as BigDave said. However, it can be easily manipulated to do immoral things. Hence why some systemic limitation (e.g. law, regulation, etc) is needed to prevent its use for unwanted ends.

[awesome guy]

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Capitalism is arguably amoral (meaning it does not have a moral component).

Godless capitalism is no better than godless communism.

And devotion to money is not a good thing.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Devotion to money isn't a good thing. But saying capitalism is greed is just commie speak. Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest. Commies reveal their hearts saying that means screwing everyone over to maximize profits. But it really means as it states, doing what's in your best interest, as you define them. If you are as the so called robber barons then that means philanthropy as they ended up giving away their fortunes to aide the poor. Or it can mean supporting your church however you feel is best. Or charity or charitable acts. There's no direct inference that capitalism means being Scrooge McDuck. But even if that's their choice, it's still their choice. No other human has a right to that money, to redistribute it, to create a powerful government so that crooked elitists take over control of the funds. It belongs to the individual to do as they wish. And our past shows that meant more charity and more aid without also enabling the lazy and leeches. It worked better because the money was controlled by those who best managed it. And that includes them also being generous and giving. The ideas from the commies that there were dead people lying in the streets just never happened. Even in the great depression, it was soup kitchens and charities that aided the poor and those suffering. The giant federal apparatus didn't exist at that time as the federal government was a shadow of what it is now. Capitalism isn't a synonym for greed or the worst in human nature. You see that in the statist as they really just steal the money for themselves while giving the poor just enough to continue being poor AND dependent on them to survive. IE, votes for free stuff. Very unChristian and unethical.

I didn't say "capitalism is greed". I said it is driven by greed. And you admitted so yourself, "Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest". When there is no systemic limitation to doing what's in one's best interest, then greed (and even no feeling of greed) can lead to truly unjust results (monopolies, child labor, etc).

As I said earlier, we don't have a disagreement that unfettered capitalism is a bad idea because humans are humans and some will manipulate it if given the chance. You agreed when you classified it as anarcho-capitalism and said you didn't support that. Again, we're in agreement there.

Unfettered capitalism is amoral, as BigDave said. However, it can be easily manipulated to do immoral things. Hence why some systemic limitation (e.g. law, regulation, etc) is needed to prevent its use for unwanted ends.

It's not driven by greed. That's commie fear mongering. It's driving by people behaving in their interest which are rarely lust of money. Most people are doing things that make them happy, and then includes charity. And even with your list of evils, none of you examples really are. Monopolies aren't evil and they still exist today. They exist in commodity industries. Even in the trust days, they're not materially different than what we have today. Only instead of the trust being the agent dictating policies and prices, it's the government (looking at you cable industry). Banking, utilities, etc also follow similar patterns. Only it's government "regulators" that are scrapping a share instead of industry groups. It's the ultimate in anti-competitive behavior with no solution outside of praying some watchdog group can get the public to not only pay attention to the abuses, but care enough to act. Regulation as a savior is an illusion. Just look how the regulators have screwed up banking. Legislation like Dodd Franks have made it very difficult for smaller lenders, creating even bigger "too big to fail" banks. Capitalism is inherently good. Regulation is inherently bad. With it, you're creating an environment where businesses are compelled to purchase regulations. And that's via the more ambiguous campaign donations and the more covert and destructive revolving door of government where "industry" people move back and forth between the government and private sector, first as an industrialist and then as a regulator only to return to being an industrialist after creating favorable regulations for their industry. It encourages corruption and makes it hard to prove and restrict. With capitalism, the market can at least respond. Not to mention removing moral hazard and all the other ills of central planning and regulation.

Bigger picture and more to the heart, your insistence on a giant government overseeing business and then acting as a charity demonstrates a remarkable lack of faith in humanity. They're all functions of the individual. Yet you seem to believe the default position for a human is to cheat and screw over others. Ironically, the solution to this imaginary problem creates the issues it intends to solve. That's from the problem being misdiagnosed. It's not a problem of what's wrong with everyone else, it's a problem of what's wrong with you. And that problem is a lack of faith in them to live their lives as they see fit. Christ taught us to be teachers, not overlords. Your "Christian" solution is to be an overlord and I hope you can see how that makes it really unChristian. The Christian solution is faith in the lord and each other. To teach to those falling down, not steal their money while taking a cut for your political friends.

[VisorBoy]

WTF? Unfettered capitalism is immoral?

Capitalism is arguably amoral (meaning it does not have a moral component).

Godless capitalism is no better than godless communism.

And devotion to money is not a good thing.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Devotion to money isn't a good thing. But saying capitalism is greed is just commie speak. Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest. Commies reveal their hearts saying that means screwing everyone over to maximize profits. But it really means as it states, doing what's in your best interest, as you define them. If you are as the so called robber barons then that means philanthropy as they ended up giving away their fortunes to aide the poor. Or it can mean supporting your church however you feel is best. Or charity or charitable acts. There's no direct inference that capitalism means being Scrooge McDuck. But even if that's their choice, it's still their choice. No other human has a right to that money, to redistribute it, to create a powerful government so that crooked elitists take over control of the funds. It belongs to the individual to do as they wish. And our past shows that meant more charity and more aid without also enabling the lazy and leeches. It worked better because the money was controlled by those who best managed it. And that includes them also being generous and giving. The ideas from the commies that there were dead people lying in the streets just never happened. Even in the great depression, it was soup kitchens and charities that aided the poor and those suffering. The giant federal apparatus didn't exist at that time as the federal government was a shadow of what it is now. Capitalism isn't a synonym for greed or the worst in human nature. You see that in the statist as they really just steal the money for themselves while giving the poor just enough to continue being poor AND dependent on them to survive. IE, votes for free stuff. Very unChristian and unethical.

I didn't say "capitalism is greed". I said it is driven by greed. And you admitted so yourself, "Capitalism is individuals doing what's in their best interest". When there is no systemic limitation to doing what's in one's best interest, then greed (and even no feeling of greed) can lead to truly unjust results (monopolies, child labor, etc).

As I said earlier, we don't have a disagreement that unfettered capitalism is a bad idea because humans are humans and some will manipulate it if given the chance. You agreed when you classified it as anarcho-capitalism and said you didn't support that. Again, we're in agreement there.

Unfettered capitalism is amoral, as BigDave said. However, it can be easily manipulated to do immoral things. Hence why some systemic limitation (e.g. law, regulation, etc) is needed to prevent its use for unwanted ends.

It's not driven by greed. That's commie fear mongering. It's driving by people behaving in their interest which are rarely lust of money. Most people are doing things that make them happy, and then includes charity. And even with your list of evils, none of you examples really are. Monopolies aren't evil and they still exist today. They exist in commodity industries. Even in the trust days, they're not materially different than what we have today. Only instead of the trust being the agent dictating policies and prices, it's the government (looking at you cable industry). Banking, utilities, etc also follow similar patterns. Only it's government "regulators" that are scrapping a share instead of industry groups. It's the ultimate in anti-competitive behavior with no solution outside of praying some watchdog group can get the public to not only pay attention to the abuses, but care enough to act. Regulation as a savior is an illusion. Just look how the regulators have screwed up banking. Legislation like Dodd Franks have made it very difficult for smaller lenders, creating even bigger "too big to fail" banks. Capitalism is inherently good. Regulation is inherently bad. With it, you're creating an environment where businesses are compelled to purchase regulations. And that's via the more ambiguous campaign donations and the more covert and destructive revolving door of government where "industry" people move back and forth between the government and private sector, first as an industrialist and then as a regulator only to return to being an industrialist after creating favorable regulations for their industry. It encourages corruption and makes it hard to prove and restrict. With capitalism, the market can at least respond. Not to mention removing moral hazard and all the other ills of central planning and regulation.

Bigger picture and more to the heart, your insistence on a giant government overseeing business and then acting as a charity demonstrates a remarkable lack of faith in humanity. They're all functions of the individual. Yet you seem to believe the default position for a human is to cheat and screw over others. Ironically, the solution to this imaginary problem creates the issues it intends to solve. That's from the problem being misdiagnosed. It's not a problem of what's wrong with everyone else, it's a problem of what's wrong with you. And that problem is a lack of faith in them to live their lives as they see fit. Christ taught us to be teachers, not overlords. Your "Christian" solution is to be an overlord and I hope you can see how that makes it really unChristian. The Christian solution is faith in the lord and each other. To teach to those falling down, not steal their money while taking a cut for your political friends.

True, I made the same mistake as with unfettered capitalism. My apologies. Monopolies may not be immoral by definition, but they allow immorality if one chooses to use it wrongly. So for the ideal human, they could be used for good. For the actual human, there's a distribution of good/bad.

My "lack of faith in humanity" stems not from some theory, but instead on the history of Western civilization. One of the criticisms of Communism, and rightly so, is that it relies on an idealized human. The version of capitalism without any welfare also relies on such a person. In both cases, there are pockets of people who will not or can not succeed because of the actions of others. In Communism, it's due to the person who refuses to "work his share". In capitalism, it's due to the person who takes advantage of a monopoly situation to underpay workers or raises prices on critical medicines outside the reach of those who need it (coupled with a deficit in charity from the people at large).

What we have in the US today is close to what moral capitalism would look like.