the Biblical Basis for Socialism Is Undeniable, my friends

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right.

That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.

So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
I understand. You love Americanism and Christianity. You can like purple and green at the same time. It doesn't mean purple is green and it certainly doesn't mean green is purple.

17th Century American thought and 1st Century Biblical thought are almost total opposites. Don't let it stress you out. You can appreciate both.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
No, you are being ridiculous.

You are confusing conforming to G-d, and conforming to the state. You are confusing obeying socialist programs, with personal charity. They are not the same.

Leviticus was not a food stamp program. It did not institute a system of government confiscation of food, to give out to others.

Leviticus told individual people to be charitable. Not election someone else to be charitable for you. Not to demand other people who have more than you, give to the poor. It was directed at YOU the individual.

You the property owner, who can do what you want with your own property, like a true Capitalist. You can do with your property as you see fit. G-d says, be charitable with what you have.

That is nothing at all like socialism. Nothing.
I am a full blown freedom loving capitalist. I'm on your side. I just do not derive my economic and political theory from Middle Eastern/African documents. Israel was a theocracy. Refusing to follow the laws of God was not an option. The punishment for dishonoring God was death by a violent means of execution if I recall.

The Bible is socialist as a mother fucker. The Bible is actually more socialist than Marxism. I am not socialist nor am I stupid enough to pretend a middle Eastern document promotes European values that predate England's exposure to Christianity. Christianity influenced European culture but it never erased Europe's core identity as Germanic peoples. Even World War 2 did not completely erase the ancient European spirit.

Even today you agree that socialism sucks.
The Bible is socialist as a mother fcker. The Bible is actually more socialist than Marxism.

So, that's wrong. I don't know how else to explain it to you, given there are literally dozens on dozens of examples of how the Bible promotes the fundamentals of Capitalism, and opposes Marxism and Socialism.

To claim otherwise, means that either you have no idea what the Bible really teaches... or you have no idea what Marxism is.

Obviously if you really want to believe that, then that's more a choice than an empirical fact. And to be honest, if the Bible was in fact Marxist or Socialist, then Christianity shouldn't exist today, because as we all know, every socialized system fails.

We see that in Venezuela, and North Korea, today. People are literally starving to death, and if that is the system that Christianity promoted, then Christianity would have died out over the past 2,000 years. If the old testament promoted that, the Jews should have died out in the past 6,000 years.

There shouldn't be any Jews or Christians left in this world. Who would join a group of mass starvation people?

I certainly wouldn't. Hey! There's a group of Christian socialists over there, cooking up rodents and rummaging through garbage cans.... you want to be a Christian?

Um.... no?

So either every Christian for the last 2,000 years isn't a Christian, or 2,000 years of humanity somehow all consistently failed to understand what the Bible says.....

Or far more likely than the "everyone on the planet is wrong but me" claim.... maybe YOU have it wrong. Maybe your claims about what you think the Bible says, are false? Maybe what you think it says, it doesn't?

I'm going with that. Far easier to believe that literally billions of Christians world wide, and for 2,000 years of history have it right, and you have it wrong, than the other way around.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right.

That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.

So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
I understand. You love Americanism and Christianity. You can like purple and green at the same time. It doesn't mean purple is green and it certainly doesn't mean green is purple.

17th Century American thought and 1st Century Biblical thought are almost total opposites. Don't let it stress you out. You can appreciate both.
No.... You are just wrong.

It is that simple. I'm not stressed out about it, because I know I'm right. I don't need you to try and explain something that you are wrong about, or try and rationalize it.

You are wrong. The Bible is not socialist or Marxist, and nothing you say changes that. It's really that simple :)
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right.

That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.

So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
I understand. You love Americanism and Christianity. You can like purple and green at the same time. It doesn't mean purple is green and it certainly doesn't mean green is purple.

17th Century American thought and 1st Century Biblical thought are almost total opposites. Don't let it stress you out. You can appreciate both.
No.... You are just wrong.

It is that simple. I'm not stressed out about it, because I know I'm right. I don't need you to try and explain something that you are wrong about, or try and rationalize it.

You are wrong. The Bible is not socialist or Marxist, and nothing you say changes that. It's really that simple :)
The Bible says what the Bible says. I have read it cover to cover three times. I also grew up in the mountains of Alabama. I was surrounded by people filled with an independent self reliant attitude. Their fiscally conservative political views were way way way more important than following the Bible to a Tee. If you asked them they would claim Jesus was conservative too but the only Bible they knew was John 3:16.

Good luck to you. Read Leviticus and the major prophets or don't. It makes no difference to me. I'm sure you prefer not to read it. I grew up around idiots my entire childhood. I get the desire to remain stupid. It is a strong force. The Bible says what the Bible says. Christians do not use the Bible for their political philosophy.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Or far more likely than the "everyone on the planet is wrong but me" claim.... maybe YOU have it wrong. Maybe your claims about what you think the Bible says, are false? Maybe
The Mayflower Compact was implemented by the Puritans and it failed. Why were they called Puritans? Because they were purists following the Bible and its traditions with accuracy.

We agree with each other. The socialism of the Bible is a dumb political system. The socialism of Marxism is a dumb political system. We agree with each other on this matter. You are under some spell that obligates you to marry the Bible with every belief that you hold. That's dumb. Nobody can live up to that standard. You do not agree with everything in the Bible. That's impossible but honestly you do not have to. You can disagree with the communist shit in the Bible. I certainly disagree with it. Deep down I think you do too.
 
Last edited:

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
As i began to read Marx and Engels, it reminded me of the biblical messages i grew up with

By then, I had spent several years realizing that things were not right in our society. And now I saw there were other ways to organize an economy that reward people for their work and enable them to sustain themselves. Capitalism was doing that for some, but it was leaving a whole bunch of other people to suffer and die. And I learned that these class issues could not be divorced from race and gender
Bullshit. All of the social programs created by the Christian churches were voluntary, as per the texts, not government programs, which outside of the grain dole for a select few hundred thous in the city of Rome didn't exist; the Christian social networks were maintained by willing volunteers and believers, while the govt. ones were run by partisan hacks and embezzlers.
Guess which ones were far more successful? One reason rich white liberals hate Christians is they show just how useless capitalists are; the rich people mostly donate to art museums and ballets and other useless crap that gets their names on buildings and in society columns, not real charities.

And, re jobs and employment, we all know now that there is no difference between Commies and Wall Street on how labor should be valued, and that 'excess labor' and the elderly need to be exterminated lest they refuse to starve to death quietly without annoying the bosses. There are always plenty of cheap replacements around somewhere in the world.
 
Last edited:

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right.

That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.

So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
I understand. You love Americanism and Christianity. You can like purple and green at the same time. It doesn't mean purple is green and it certainly doesn't mean green is purple.

17th Century American thought and 1st Century Biblical thought are almost total opposites. Don't let it stress you out. You can appreciate both.
No.... You are just wrong.

It is that simple. I'm not stressed out about it, because I know I'm right. I don't need you to try and explain something that you are wrong about, or try and rationalize it.

You are wrong. The Bible is not socialist or Marxist, and nothing you say changes that. It's really that simple :)
The Bible says what the Bible says. I have read it cover to cover three times. I also grew up in the mountains of Alabama. I was surrounded by people filled with an independent self reliant attitude. Their fiscally conservative political views were way way way more important than following the Bible to a Tee. If you asked them they would claim Jesus was conservative too but the only Bible they knew was John 3:16.

Good luck to you. Read Leviticus and the major prophets or don't. It makes no difference to me. I'm sure you prefer not to read it. I grew up around idiots my entire childhood. I get the desire to remain stupid. It is a strong force. The Bible says what the Bible says. Christians do not use the Bible for their political philosophy.
Read Leviticus and the major prophets or don't.

I have. Still not socialism, or Marxist. Further, you do you realize that we live by the New Testament, as Christians, right?

If I was Jewish, then that would matter quite a bit more. If I was Israeli, that would matter quite a bit more, because many of the laws were directed specifically at Israel and Jewish people.

This is why you don't see the prophets of the old testament going to foreign countries, and preaching they needed to follow Leviticus.

Nor do you see Jesus telling Herrod or Pontius Pilot to follow Isaiah.

The old Testament is extremely important for a number of reasons. There are numerous stories that provide examples to us of human nature, and the results of sin, and the mercy and love of G-d. However, even more important, is that it provides a historical foundation of how we got to where we are. It answers the questions of why the world is, the way that it is.

However, even with the old Testament and the prophets, I still don't see a Marxist element anywhere.

For example, some socialists will point to land rights, and how land was "redistributed" to the people without land. But that's actually not at all the purpose, or how it worked. The land was not 'redistributed' to the poor. The land was returned to the prior owners. This was to prevent the land from leaving the ownership of the Israelities. So if you were a Jews in Israel, and you owned 10 acres of land, and you sold this land to say Ishmael from another country, after 7 years the land would revert back to your ownership, so that all the land of Israel would remain Israeli.

G-d even specifically says as much, when he said
"And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine: for you are strangers and sojourners with me."

If you didn't own land to begin with, you didn't just get land. Just because you were poor, didn't mean you got land.

The law returned the land to those who already owned it, but sold. And the reason was to keep the land G-d gave Israel... owned by Israelis. Not some Marxist redistribution system.

But aside from that, even the old testament was full of Capitalism. The story of Jacob, working as a shepherd, raising sheep, growing his flock, sheering and selling the wool, hiring servants to help grow the business. That's capitalism.

Remember, when Jacob left home, he was alone. When he returned, he had a horde of people with him, not just his wives and kids. He had a massive flock, and servants that worked for him, and they don't work for free. How did he get that? Capitalism. He worked and grew his business.

The story of Ruth and Boaz, was him being a wealthy land owner, hiring servants to work the land, threshing the harvest, selling it, and then using the money to purchase more land and property, to hiring more servants to work and thresh more harvest.

That's capitalism! That is the entire capitalist system, in one story. And Boaz, the evil wealthy capitalist, was the hero. He was the hero that saved the girl, and redeemed the women with no home, and pursued her, and loved her, and married her. He was the hero of the story!

The evil anti-marxist, anti-socialist, profit motivated business running capitalist, was the hero!

So I think maybe you need to be like the Ethiopian Eunich from Acts 8:26 who when asked if they understand what the old testament means, said “How can I, unless someone guides me?”,

You need to find someone who really understands what the Bible means and says. Because what you are claim the Bible supports, and what the Bible actually says, isn't the same. *shrug*
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Or far more likely than the "everyone on the planet is wrong but me" claim.... maybe YOU have it wrong. Maybe your claims about what you think the Bible says, are false? Maybe
The Mayflower Compact was implemented by the Puritans and it failed. Why were they called Puritans? Because they were purists following the Bible and its traditions with accuracy.

We agree with each other. The socialism of the Bible is a dumb political system. The socialism of Marxism is a dumb political system. We agree with each other on this matter. You are under some spell that obligates you to marry the Bible with every belief that you hold. That's dumb. Nobody can live up to that standard. You do not agree with everything in the Bible. That's impossible but honestly you do not have to. You can disagree with the communist shit in the Bible. I certainly disagree with it. Deep down I think you do too.
That's not exactly true.


So a little history. The Mayflower had 102 passengers. Of those 102 people, only 41 of them were actually pilgrims. The other 61 people, were a mix of orphaned kids, merchants, craftsmen, and indentured servants.

This is well documented.

So your argument has a fundamental flaw from the start, in that the Puritan pilgrims were actually a minority of the people.

Further, the mayflower compact was openly considered an emergency set of rules, that were temporary.

The Mayflower was supposed to have landed near the Hudson river, as part of the Virginia Company. When the Mayflower ended up in Plymouth instead of Virginia, the non-puritans refused to follow the rules setup by the Virginia Company, because they were not in Virginia's territory.

The entire group faced a situation where it was going to be every man for himself, which would likely end in mass deaths for everyone. They were only 100 people, in an untamed wilderness, and potentially hostile natives. It was almost unavoidable that if everyone went their own way, they would end up dead.

The Mayflower compact was an emergency set of rules, to gain the support of everyone to stick together.

Who wrote the Mayflower compact? That isn't clear. It is possible a pastor wrote it, or someone else like possibly Myles Standish who was the military officer hired to protect the colony.

Regardless of who actually wrote it, the goal wasn't to create a Biblical Utopia... rather it was to keep the colony together, and prevent a mass rebellion.

So if you just think about that.... if the goal is to keep people together, who are you going to write the laws for? The people who are trying to leave. That's the non-pilgrams. The non-pilgrams were the people who were rebelling and refusing to accept the laws of Virginia.

If the Pilgram Puritans had written the laws to suit themselves... that would have done nothing to quell the non-pilgrams that were protesting.

Just think about it logically. If you and me, are in a contract, and you decide you reject the contract and want to leave. If I rewrite the contract in a way that benefits me and my views.... how does that get you stay? It doesn't. I would have to rewrite the contract in a way that meets YOUR requirements, not mine.

So undoubtedly.... no question... the Mayflower Compact was to appease the non-puritan non-pilgrams, and get them to stay.

Now that said... Nothing in the Mayflower Compact fits with the Bible.

Again, for simplicity, I'll just refer back to Ruth and Boaz from the Old Testament. Or you can look at Mark 12, with Jesus story of the bad tenants.

Either one requires property rights. It requires the ability to own land, and work the land for your own benefit. Not socialism, not land redistribution, not 'to each according to their need, from each according to their ability'. None of that.

The Mayflower compact denied property rights. They held the land in common, and the production in common.

So .... pretty clear.... The Bible doesn't support socialism or Marxism, and the Mayflower Compact didn't come from the Bible.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London.

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London.

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London.

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
Really. So in your world, you think the corporation required they engage in Cannibalism? Can you show me such a document?

And you are suggesting the corporation required them to raid graves for corn? Really? That is amazing to think the Virginia company had no idea where the Mayflower landed, but somehow they knew that were they landed, there would be graves.... with corn... that could be raided?

Wow. They must have some absolutely amazing people working for the Virginia company. They knew the Mayflower would land in the wrong spot, and knew the Natives would have graves there, and knew the graves would have corn, and so instructed the colonists to raid graves for corn at an unknown location they landed at.

WOW! That is impressive!
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
Really. So in your world, you think the corporation required they engage in Cannibalism? Can you show me such a document?

And you are suggesting the corporation required them to raid graves for corn? Really? That is amazing to think the Virginia company had no idea where the Mayflower landed, but somehow they knew that were they landed, there would be graves.... with corn... that could be raided?

Wow. They must have some absolutely amazing people working for the Virginia company. They knew the Mayflower would land in the wrong spot, and knew the Natives would have graves there, and knew the graves would have corn, and so instructed the colonists to raid graves for corn at an unknown location they landed at.

WOW! That is impressive!
Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed, due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money. Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual, just ideological spin. The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony. The Crown had to rescue its citizens from greedy idiots.



Safety and food was their primary concern, and they begged the Virginia Company to help them handle these two pressing issues. The response was clear: your primary concern should be growing tobacco [1].


Since it was as bad as it sounds, the members of the Virginia Company started looking for the culprit, which in the hierarchy-oriented minds of 17-century Englishmen was the leader. But which leader was it – Sir Thomas Smith who led the company until 1619 or his successor Sir Edwin Sandys?


 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
Really. So in your world, you think the corporation required they engage in Cannibalism? Can you show me such a document?

And you are suggesting the corporation required them to raid graves for corn? Really? That is amazing to think the Virginia company had no idea where the Mayflower landed, but somehow they knew that were they landed, there would be graves.... with corn... that could be raided?

Wow. They must have some absolutely amazing people working for the Virginia company. They knew the Mayflower would land in the wrong spot, and knew the Natives would have graves there, and knew the graves would have corn, and so instructed the colonists to raid graves for corn at an unknown location they landed at.

WOW! That is impressive!
Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed, due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money. Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual, just ideological spin. The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony. The Crown had to rescue its citizens from greedy idiots.



Safety and food was their primary concern, and they begged the Virginia Company to help them handle these two pressing issues. The response was clear: your primary concern should be growing tobacco [1].


Since it was as bad as it sounds, the members of the Virginia Company started looking for the culprit, which in the hierarchy-oriented minds of 17-century Englishmen was the leader. But which leader was it – Sir Thomas Smith who led the company until 1619 or his successor Sir Edwin Sandys?


I love it when people can't respond to sarcasm.

"Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed"

My corporation? How old do you think I am?

due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money.

You are implying that somehow the corporation was responsible for the ship being blown off course by...... wind? The corporation is responsible for wind?

Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual

So posting the actual memoirs and documents involved "won't be factual" in your world?

The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony.

The whole point of the company, was to create a Royal colony. That was the very purpose of the Charter by King James. So in your world, achieving the designed goal, means it failed miserably?

No I get it that you are pointing out the Virginia company itself, had their own internal goals, that failed. That's true, sure.

But you seem to be taking a rather small fact of 1624 history, and trying to twist it into your 2021 ideology, and I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Grow up.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
775
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
Really. So in your world, you think the corporation required they engage in Cannibalism? Can you show me such a document?

And you are suggesting the corporation required them to raid graves for corn? Really? That is amazing to think the Virginia company had no idea where the Mayflower landed, but somehow they knew that were they landed, there would be graves.... with corn... that could be raided?

Wow. They must have some absolutely amazing people working for the Virginia company. They knew the Mayflower would land in the wrong spot, and knew the Natives would have graves there, and knew the graves would have corn, and so instructed the colonists to raid graves for corn at an unknown location they landed at.

WOW! That is impressive!
Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed, due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money. Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual, just ideological spin. The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony. The Crown had to rescue its citizens from greedy idiots.



Safety and food was their primary concern, and they begged the Virginia Company to help them handle these two pressing issues. The response was clear: your primary concern should be growing tobacco [1].


Since it was as bad as it sounds, the members of the Virginia Company started looking for the culprit, which in the hierarchy-oriented minds of 17-century Englishmen was the leader. But which leader was it – Sir Thomas Smith who led the company until 1619 or his successor Sir Edwin Sandys?


I love it when people can't respond to sarcasm.

"Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed"

My corporation? How old do you think I am?

due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money.

You are implying that somehow the corporation was responsible for the ship being blown off course by...... wind? The corporation is responsible for wind?

Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual

So posting the actual memoirs and documents involved "won't be factual" in your world?

The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony.

The whole point of the company, was to create a Royal colony. That was the very purpose of the Charter by King James. So in your world, achieving the designed goal, means it failed miserably?

No I get it that you are pointing out the Virginia company itself, had their own internal goals, that failed. That's true, sure.

But you seem to be taking a rather small fact of 1624 history, and trying to twist it into your 2021 ideology, and I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Grow up.
Oh noe.s you Touched Me Last. with just more rubbish and spin. Your crazy attempt at claiiming it was some great acheivement of 'free enterprise' never happened, period. Get over it, and go find some more propaganda that was maybe better thought out, and avoid following those morons who spam the History forum with idiot FDR bashing trash; they don't know fact from fiction either. Just because those tards lowered the standards to Democrat levels doesn't mean you have to lower yours.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
The Mayflower was formed by a business corporation. The colony couldn't feed itself and pay the shareholders a dividend, so the colonists told the corporation to kiss off and decided to work for themselves.
So.... no.... just reading history, that is false.


Further, it was formed by a government corporation, not a business corporation.

The Virginia Company was chartered by King James I, for the goal of colonizing the east coast of the new world, and make a profit for..... the shareholders? No, for the royal crown. The government.

Further, the problem was not the taxes. In fact the contract was actually quite reasonable. May not seem reasonable to us, by today's standards, but at the time most of these people were doomed to poverty for life in London. How many died because they didn't want to leave the ship?

There were two ways to become a member of the London Company. If you had money to buy shares in the Company but were inclined to remain safe and snug in England, you could invest as an "Adventurer." If you really were adventurous and didn't mind travelling to the new colony, you could become a member of the Company as a "Planter."​
Planters were required to work for the Company for a set number of years. In exchange for this work -- or, more precisely, servitude -- the company provided housing, clothing, and food. At the end of the servitude the planter would be granted a piece of land and be free of obligations to the company. In addition, the planter would be entitled to a share of the profits made by the company. (The company also recruited indentured servants, who would work for a set number of years, typically seven, in exchange for passage to the colony.)​

So let's review for a second. The people who came to America via the Mayflower, were Planters. Planters were required to work for the company, for free food, clothing, and housing, in exchange for a set number of years. There was no taxes, or paying the shareholders. You got everything for free, in exchange for working.

Free house. Free food. Free clothing. Again, in todays standards a shirt and rice for years of servitude seems unreasonable, but that's because at that time, food was horribly expensive, housing was rare, and clothing cost you weeks of wages.

And then after you fulfilled your years of service to the Virginia company, you got a grant of land, and a share of the profits of the Virginia company.

The contract with the company, was actually very very reasonable.

Imagine if you will, that if you worked for Walmart, they would pay for you to move where the store was, paid for a free place to live, paid for your clothing, and paid for your food, and after you worked there for 7 years, you got a grant of land, and a share of Walmart profits for the rest of your entire life?

The deal really wasn't a bad deal.
Rubbish. The company wanted too much right away, and they decided instead to keep themselves alive instead of worrying about some fat rich guys screwing off back in England. Your story is utter bullshit, from the same mentality those tards on Wall Street have toward people with real jobs. That's why you far right Faux Marketeers are even less popular than commies and can barely win elections against blatantly crooked scum like Biden or Obama or Hillary. The deal wasn't even close to viable up front.
Ok, so.... my basis for what I said, was documented historical fact.

What is your basis?

I'm not sure what you mean about Wall Street people. I know some stock brokers, and they are remarkably normal people, so I'm not sure what you are going on about.
You want to start with how they had to raid indian graves for corn and practiced cannabalism to stay alive in your big wonderful corporate model?
Really. So in your world, you think the corporation required they engage in Cannibalism? Can you show me such a document?

And you are suggesting the corporation required them to raid graves for corn? Really? That is amazing to think the Virginia company had no idea where the Mayflower landed, but somehow they knew that were they landed, there would be graves.... with corn... that could be raided?

Wow. They must have some absolutely amazing people working for the Virginia company. They knew the Mayflower would land in the wrong spot, and knew the Natives would have graves there, and knew the graves would have corn, and so instructed the colonists to raid graves for corn at an unknown location they landed at.

WOW! That is impressive!
Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed, due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money. Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual, just ideological spin. The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony. The Crown had to rescue its citizens from greedy idiots.



Safety and food was their primary concern, and they begged the Virginia Company to help them handle these two pressing issues. The response was clear: your primary concern should be growing tobacco [1].


Since it was as bad as it sounds, the members of the Virginia Company started looking for the culprit, which in the hierarchy-oriented minds of 17-century Englishmen was the leader. But which leader was it – Sir Thomas Smith who led the company until 1619 or his successor Sir Edwin Sandys?


I love it when people can't respond to sarcasm.

"Thanks for conceding the obvious, thart your 'corporation' didn't even make it make the first landing before it failed"

My corporation? How old do you think I am?

due to some rich guys wanting to cut expenses and devalue the hired labor, which promptly relied on their own initiative and let the corporate do nothings wait for their money.

You are implying that somehow the corporation was responsible for the ship being blown off course by...... wind? The corporation is responsible for wind?

Now you want to dream up more nonsense, that's fine; it just won't be factual

So posting the actual memoirs and documents involved "won't be factual" in your world?

The Company failed miserably and it became a Royal colony.

The whole point of the company, was to create a Royal colony. That was the very purpose of the Charter by King James. So in your world, achieving the designed goal, means it failed miserably?

No I get it that you are pointing out the Virginia company itself, had their own internal goals, that failed. That's true, sure.

But you seem to be taking a rather small fact of 1624 history, and trying to twist it into your 2021 ideology, and I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Grow up.
Oh noe.s you Touched Me Last. with just more rubbish and spin. Your crazy attempt at claiiming it was some great acheivement of 'free enterprise' never happened, period. Get over it, and go find some more propaganda that was maybe better thought out, and avoid following those morons who spam the History forum with idiot FDR bashing trash; they don't know fact from fiction either. Just because those tards lowered the standards to Democrat levels doesn't mean you have to lower yours.
Just saying "you are wrong" is not proof of anything. Again, grow up. You want an adult debate, you have to debate like an adult.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top