This is great. You should definitely watch it. If you haven’t heard of these guys, this is a great introduction. If you have, then it’s even more fun to watch.
Freedom is great. Hayek is awesome.
Category Archives: Capitalism
Another Home Run From Stossel
I’ve said it many times before: Just watch everything from John Stossel. Here’s another great one.
Defund The Police?
I’m loving the demands to defund the police. That is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. I’m somewhat alarmed that many of my conservative friends are mocking the idea. Of course, it’s being advocated by liberals and Democrats, so a certain percentage of conservatives will oppose the idea in a knee-jerk fashion just because of who is proposing it.
The problem is that when they oppose defunding police, they are defending a socialist-funded, government-run service that has protected the business of abortion for almost 50 years. When you defend a socialist-funded government program, what you’re saying is that you want to continue to force people to pay for this service, because you can’t imagine any other way of receiving police services. You are committing the sin of covetousness.
Liberals have their socialist programs, and some don’t even mind being called socialists. Conservatives have their socialist programs and they don’t like being called socialists, but that is certainly what they are.
When liberals want to defund a socialist program, that is a win for conservaitves. When liberals want to defund the enforcement arm of a socialist state, you are scoring a huge victory. Socialism doesn’t work without police (tax collectors/thugs with guns). All conservatives should join with them in working to end socialist-funded government policing, and pointing out that government police provide inferior service, because it is funded by government by force, without free market competition.
If government police ceased to exist would chaos rule the streets as conservatives seem to believe? It sounds like a stupid question to me. Have you given up your guns? If an intruder came into your house, would you feel better that the police will arrive in 10 minutes (if you’re lucky) or that you have a gun by your bed? Are you going to be consistent with your belief in the 2nd Amendment, or just give up your guns and let the government take care of you? Police are the chaos, not the solution to the chaos. For Pete’s sake, they drive around making sure you have the right sticker on your car. You are being ripped off by the police. Police and government are the criminals, not the solutions to crime.
There are biblical and free market replacements for police. I’m not advocating that criminals go unpunished. America had no police for many decades after its founding. Defunding police is consistent with the founding principles. Liberals happened upon this truth for different reasons, and conservatives would be stupid to oppose them.
Socialists Are the Greedy Ones
This whole video is worth watching, of course. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything bad by John Stossel. However I’m just going to comment on what Hugo Chavez does at the 2:00 to 2:08 mark. He says, “Expropriate it!”, referring to the private business they were looking at.
It struck me what a greedy dirtbag he must be. He wants something, so he just takes it by threat of force. That is what all unrighteous government is based on, and the bigger, more socialist the government is, the more blatant they are about it.
Marx and the socialists on the street like to say that capitalists are the greedy ones, and anyone can certainly commit the sin of being greedy. However, capitalism doesn’t require greed. Socialism is built on, and requires greed and covetousness.
Capitalists get rich (in most cases) by serving people. In whatever business you’re in, you make a profit by serving people. Some businesses are more suited to serving a greater number of people than others. Sports and entertainment people can serve a greater number of people with their work hours than a guy who mows lawns, for example. A guy who figures out a way to mow lawns more efficiently and more cheaply than his competition, will please more people than a guy who doesn’t, and will make more money. People being motivated to make more money honestly, aren’t greedy.
Socialists are greedy. They covet free stuff either for themselves or for others, and they may even be willing to personally, voluntarily sacrifice, but as socialists, they ultimately want to force other people to pay as well.
Let’s take a local issue as an example. Socialists want more money for the local public school system. The school district is more than willing to accept their donations, and they may very well donate. But a socialist isn’t happy until everyone is forced to give more, whether they believe the school system is a worthy cause or not. Socialists like that are the greedy ones, who are committing the sins of covetousness and greediness.
Hugo Chavez demonstrates that sinfulness perfectly in those few seconds of this video.
Slippery Slope to Socialism
I spoke with a couple people demonstrating for universal healthcare on 9th and Royal Gorge today. I asked them what exactly they’re wanting, and they wouldn’t really commit to anything specific, saying there are several different proposals being discussed in the state legislature.
I pointed out that whatever they’re advocating, if it’s based on taxation, and forcing people to pay, they’re committing the sin of covetousness, and they’re in favor of government theft.
The guy said we already fund fire services, public schools, etc by taxation. I told him we homeschool, and don’t receive a dime from the government, yet I’m forced to pay for the education of other people’s children under threat of confiscation of my property. We learn in kindergarten that it’s wrong to force people to participate in something they don’t want to do.
But he is absolutely correct in pointing out that if I were to take the position that it is just fine to fund public school, fire departments, and police services by socialism, then it is perfectly fine to fund everyone’s healthcare by socialism. Any line that you want to draw between public school and public healthcare is completely arbitrary. There is no logical reason why one would be acceptable, and the other unacceptable.
That is why unless we take a stand against all socialism, we will lose this debate. Our society will be based on covetousness, unless we start applying Scripture to the public discourse, and appeal to God’s law written on people’s hearts–even socialists. It is equally wrong for conservatives and Christians to covet taxpayer money for public school, police, fire services or border walls, as it is for liberals to covet money for healthcare.
Small Government
You should just go through and watch everything John Stossel has ever done. Here’s another interesting one.
You could probably talk me into going down to the Cayman Islands and checking out the situation.
Millionaires
This really doesn’t have much to do with the overall topic of this website, but it’s interesting. Data taken from this website, and this website.
The countries with the highest proportion of millionaires are:
1. Singapore
2. Switzerland
3. Qatar
4. Hong Kong
5. Kuwait
6. UAE
7. USA
| Country | # of millionaires | population | % of millionaires |
| United States | 15.7 million | 325 million | 4.8% |
| United Kingdom | 2.4 million | 66 million | 3.6% |
| Japan | 2.1 million | 126 million | 1.7% |
| France | 1.8 million | 67 million | 2.7% |
| Germany | 1.5 million | 83 million | 1.8% |
| China | 1.3 million | 1.39 billion | 0.1% |
| Italy | 1.1 million | 61 million | 1.8% |
| Canada | 984,000 | 37 million | 2.7% |
| Australia | 961,000 | 25 million | 3.8% |
| Switzerland | 667,000 | 8 million | 8.3% |
The Question That Got Me Kicked Out of a Tea Party Group
I have found that the participants in Facebook Tea Party groups have little actual regard for the ideas of the founding fathers. They are every bit as socialist as democrats. I was surprised to see this meme that I like posted by someone who seems to post a lot of socialist stuff.
I posted this comment:
Where on this chart are the people who want to tax me to build a wall, prevent me from hiring or having at my house who I want?
It took the lady who posted it about an hour to respond and she said, something like, “They’re on the right. I’m surprised you couldn’t figure it out for yourself.” I clicked on her profile link, thinking maybe I had not remembered her correctly, but within a few seconds, I realized that I had been blocked from the group.
It’s not the first tea party group I’ve been kicked out of. I had a fantastic discussion about how Social Security was socialist in a big tea party group. I was kicked out of it. But there are tea party groups where those came from. Maybe I should join a liberal group, but I’m sure after my first post about how abortion is murder, I’d be kicked out.
Oh well, I’ll just go on lighting brush fires in people’s minds about the gospel, freedom and capitalism.
False Presuppositions of Conservatives Revealed in Border Debate
Of course, not every conservative believes all these things, but as a whole, the arguments conservatives make against open borders reveal their false presuppositions–the beliefs behind the arguments.
1. Restricting immigration is like a homeowner locking his front door.
This argument presupposes that the government owns the entire country. That philosophy is known as socialism. A conservative who uses that argument reveals that they’re actually socialists. No wonder this country is such a mess when even the conservatives are socialists.
2. The population is already too great.
This argument presupposes that the free market is incapable of inducing people to solve problems (more socialist presuppositions). Housing will be built. Solutions to municipal water shortages will be found. People will move away from expensive places to cheaper places. If Mexico loses too many people, prices for real estate will go down, and wages will increase, and people will stay there or move back. The governments of countries that are losing people will have to straighten up and actually serve the people, or reduce taxes and regulation (gasp…freedom).
And besides that, have you ever driven across the country? There are certainly big cities, and even long stretches of places that are densely populated like LA to San Diego or Washington D.C. to Boston, but the vast majority of the country is uninhabited. There are places in the southwest that may not have enough water to support a large expansion of the population. But many places, like the Midwest have a lot of water, and are very sparsely populated. Entire states could support a many-fold population increase.
Also, if conservatives want to use this argument, they’re using the same argument as population control and abortion advocates.
3. Our culture would change.
The false presupposition is that our culture shouldn’t change. We’ve murdered 60 million babies, and millions of innocent people through the warfare state. Our taxes are outrageous. The vast majority of people send their kids to the government for their education. There are a lot of good things about America, but an unbiblical border policy isn’t one of them. How is God going to bless a country that is so fearful and hateful towards outsiders, when we were all once outsiders?
Most hispanics who come here are Catholic, and I think Catholics have a false gospel, but they have a generally Christian worldview. They value children, family, thrift and hard work. They are more American than Americans. They have some shortcomings, but I have found them to be great people.
Muslims who come here from the middle east are leaving the Muslim world–not because it’s so great, but because they prefer something else. Most Muslims are nominal Muslims, and I think if a concerted effort were made, Islam would be defeated by the superior Christian worldview through evangelism. I think most Muslims who come here would have no problem complying with Old Testament restrictions on idolatry.
4. Government can make whatever laws it wants.
This argument just reveals idolatry. Government cannot make whatever laws it wants. God is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22). The government’s only job is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). Crossing a border isn’t a sin, and therefore, no government permission is required to do something that isn’t a sin.
This bears out historically. America’s borders were completely open until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Which was obviously stupid. Chinese-Americans are usually high-achieving and contribute to society. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Chinese person).
There is no power in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. And before you quote anything about naturalization, look up what that word means, it’s not the same as immigration.
5. They’ll take our jobs.
Only a true socialist–like the government-educated American conservative–could make such a communist argument. The first obvious error is that when people move into an area is that more services are demanded, which means more jobs. The second obvious error is that jobs aren’t owned by the commune (communism) but by the employer. Way to show a complete disrespect to free market economics!
6. Liberals are for open borders.
As you’ve already seen, the “conservative” arguments for restricting immigration are socialist, unamerican and anti-Christian, in other words, liberal. This also bears out in recent American history.
Taxation In Scripture
Here’s an interesting discussion of what Scripture teaches about taxation.
Bojidar Marinov says,
“What’s the biblical principle behind ‘no taxation without representation’?”
It’s a very good question. It’s yuge. It’s an enormous question. I am not kiddin’.
So I did a quick study on the issue. Just quick (queek, as they say it in the South), not comprehensive, just to see what the Bible says and doesn’t say, without making any systematic ideology out of it. And here’s what I think I discovered:
There is no such Biblical principle. The only Biblical principle as to who gets taxed and who doesn’t is found in Matt. 17:25. It specifically says that the sons of the rulers (the homeborn, the citizens) are not taxed, while only the strangers are taxed. The words used for “taxes” there are “telos” and “kensos” (that is, “census”) and both signify taxes that are TAKEN from the population, the first as a rent for living on government land, the second as “tribute” of conquered people to their conquerors. (To compare, the taxes in Rom. 13 are “phoros,” that is, a “bringing,” something that can be understood to be a voluntary offering, not our modern compulsory taxation.) Thus, taxes in our modern sense – as a compulsory payment – only apply to strangers. The “sons” (homeborn and citizens) should pay no taxes.
This corresponds to other references in the NT and from history. Rome taxed the conquered peoples but not its own citizens. (Wealthy Romans were expected to contribute voluntarily.) That’s why the commander in Acts 22:28 paid a large sum for his citizenship: it freed him of taxes, in addition to allowing him to serve in the military and be armed at all times. The tax code changed much later, and then all citizens were made subject to taxation, and with it, all the conquered people were granted Roman citizenship.
The US had such system until 1913. It was foreigners who were taxed for the privilege to immigrate. The federal budget was sometimes almost entirely financed by this immigration poll-tax, to the point that the US entered WWI with a gigantic budget surplus, all financed by immigrants.
Such a system, however, is entirely opposite to what we have today, both as policies and as ideology. In the first place, if rulers are only supported by taxes from immigrants, they need to make sure that the nation is an attractive place for foreigners. (Rome did it by conquering nations but that can’t continue for long, not in our time, at least.) This means righteousness and justice. It also means open borders for both people and merchandise; for a ruler who closes his borders will either be left without revenue, or will have to tax his own citizens which will mean effectively turning his own citizens into foreigners. (As is the US today.) It also means a government that depends heavily on its own citizens to understand the concept of hospitality, thus, expanding the rule of righteousness across the land. In the final account, a nation that only taxes foreigners will have a government that is forced by the very nature of its taxation sources to stay limited and just, and encourage voluntarism, hospitality, and general righteousness in its population.
So, the answer to the question is:
There is no Biblical principle to support “no taxation without representation.” The Biblical principle is: “No compulsory taxation for citizens.”