GENERAL WESLEY CLARK … NOT EXACTLY A HISTORIAN (General Wesley Clark is a COMMUNIST)

Nealz Nuze ^ | 6/17/2003 | Neal Boortz

[xrp]

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK … NOT EXACTLY A HISTORIAN 

Retired Army General Wesley Clark has been very effective in keeping his face and opinions in the media forefront the past year or so.  There’s a reason for that. Political aspirations.  Clark is toying with the idea of announcing as a Democratic candidate for President of the United States.  Truth is, he’s after the number two spot.  Vice Presidential candidate for now, the Oval Office Later.

Clark was a guest on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press this past Sunday. The questioning turned to Clark’s political ambitions and his feelings on the Bush tax cut.  Clark says that he would not have supported the tax cuts … and gave the following reason: 

“Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.”

Sorry, General Clark.  You have the Constitution of the United States mixed up with the Communist Manifesto.  Don’t feel bad though.  This is a very common problem with Democrats.  Your political bedmates just can’t seem to tell the difference between the two, and apparently either can you.

This country was most definitely NOT founded on the principle of progressive taxation.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a progressive income tax was unconstitutional!  It was only after the States ratified the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution that a progressive income tax became possible. 

 

So, just where does this idea of progressive taxation come from?  Since you’re running for president, General Clark, we would have hoped you would have known this.  But, since you don’t, I have a little reading assignment for you.  It’s a document written in 1848 by two characters named Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  It’s called the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.”  “Communist Manifesto” for short. 

 

Buried in the middle of the Communist Manifesto you will find a list of things that will have to be accomplished in the “most advanced countries” in order to bring about the realization of the dream of a proletariat revolution.  You don’t have to read far on that list, General Clark, to see where just what type of government is founded on the principle of progressive taxation.  Item number two reads “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

So, General Clark.  There you go.  It’s not the United States that was founded on the principle of progressive taxation … it’s Communism.  It would have been nice if Mr. Russert had been aware of this fact, but even if he were it would have made no difference.  Tim Russert has made his opposition to tax cuts for people who actually pay taxes very clear over the past year.

 

You might also be interested in knowing, General Clark, that Item number 10 on the Communist Manifesto list is “Free education for

all children in public schools. …”  That’s government schools, General Clark.  You might want to avoid saying that government schools were one of the founding principles of the United States.  They weren’t.

Some advice, General Clark:  If you intend to pursue your run for the Vice Presidential nomination it might be advisable to refrain from citing portions of The Communist Manifesto as part of the founding principles of our country.

[Centurion2000]

bump for later review

[bvw]

Hamilton mentioned ad-hoc, temporary, specific-purpose impositions of taxes in Federalist 21. That was in a very LIMITING form -- specific purpose, a dedication of the revenue to a prescribed specific need. If only our cuurent "representatives" sworn to the Constitution would respect such limitations as they act as fiduciary agents on OUR behalf!

You say "And the very first time it happened, it chose to make its taxes progressive."

Well the first federal TAXES -- the FOUNDATION, per your construct -- were INDIRECT taxes. Excise taxes on spirits and imports duties. That happened under Washington's Admistration, and we had a brief insurrection over it.

Hamilton, himself, put it down, IIRC.

[DoctorMichael]

".......shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...." (Article I, Section 2).................Refers to an 'apportionment' in direct relation to the number of people in that state, NOT their income; much the same as the number of House Representatives per state is 'apportioned' by relative numbers of people within the states when population numbers are compared. This statement therefore has nothing to do with a "progressive" tax.

Good luck with remedial reading lessons.

Sofa000King
Since Jun 17, 2003

And be ashamed.

No need to be.......................newbie.

[Phantom Lord]

You might want to review the SIX supreme court decisions ruling a progressive income tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thus the need for the 16th Amendment.

[Sofa000King]

I think that my omission, which I mentioned in my previous post, have caused us to sort of miss each other. That's my bad.

I don't disagree that the first federal taxes were indirect. I don't disagree that Hamilton was all for limitations of taxes in general.

However, the first DIRECT tax ever imposed was in fact a progressive tax. I doubt you'll disagree with that.

DoctorMichael's unnecessarily rude comments do manage to point out that I have failed to clarify what I was trying to say. My sole point, DoctorMichael, was to show that direct taxes are provided for in the Constitution, but if you think about your own reading skills for a moment you might ask yourself how a penniless piece of property who counts as three-fifths of a person can contribute any direct revenue at all.

To reiterate:

* Even Hamilton conceded that the authority to levy new forms of taxation needed to be preserved for the federal government;

* Direct taxes are explicitly provided for in the unamended Constitution;

* The very first direct tax was progressive. So was the second, and so was the third. None of them were successfully contested as unconstitutional.

I suspect that this is the idea that General Clark intended to convey in his remarks to Tim Russert. What I KNOW he did not do is confuse the first progressive American taxes with Karl Marx's prattle, something which a lot of you readers seem to be willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker.

And again, that is something some of you should be ashamed of endorsing and believing, because it is untruthful, and because it obscures our national heritage in the name of slinging mud.

[bvw]

Wesley Clark's statement, like any time one gets in front of a mike by being only ONE statement is being overplayed against him -- that I would agree. That the statement on its face sticks out like a sore thumb and begs such rash comment I would also agree and think you might give that aspect of it some weight.

Yapping with the media, things don't always come out the way a person means ... yet Clark is practised and trained in such interviews and may by that be measured more closely than a person less familiar with such interviews.

His statement links tightly a view of what America "is all about" with "progressive taxation".

"Progressive Taxation" is a flag term of long standing, and it's awfully hard to imagine Clark is not acquainted with its most common familiar meanings -- one meaning -- a positive one to them -- that is favored to liberals and progressives even ones unfamiliar with Marx. That is indeed a parallel -- but not exactly the same -- meaning Hamilton used in talking about having staged rates of taxes on increasing sizes and values of land property. In that common sense it means "progressive income tax rates staged by level of income". I don't think anyone knows or can easily infer what Hamilton's views on a progressive income tax would be.

The second, very well-known meaning of the term "progressive taxation" is exactly that of Marx -- a LEVELER of a tax code -- one that grabs bigger slices from the economically gifted and able, so as to knock them down to the level of the less gifted and/or able, It is known to the right-wing anti-communist as well as all socialists, communists, and folks (such as Clark) exposed to the Fabian traditions of socialism at Oxford.

That Clark so casually linked that Marxian Ideal to his American Ideal is very reasonably, yet a bit rashly (because it is only one statement and not a series of such), castigated for so being a radical mischaracterization of Founding American Ideals.

[hermes509]

The people on this post seem pretty knowledgeable about history, the constitution, communism, and Marx. Can someone here help me answer some questions?

First off I'm curious about the relationship of communism to our constitution. The very first part of the constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Doesn’t communism have something to do with collectivism? Or is communism just an economic system like capitalism? Did Marx have any statements or declarations regarding our form of government or our constitution specifically?

The parts of the statement that I have included that seem to be collectivist in nature is “We the People” and then “promote the general Welfare”. What types of statements are these in relation to government, communism, and capitalism?

I’m also curious how taxation relates to communism. Was there taxation in the Soviet Union? I thought the government owned everything (no private property) and all the means of production so there was no need for taxation there?

I’ve also been curious about how socialism and communism are related. What are the similarities and differences?

Boortz also talked about public schools being communist in nature? Is this true? When did the government (state or federal governments) begin to pay for public schools? What percentage of the population has been trained by public schools?

I would appreciate all the help I can get as I often go head to head with some pretty tough and sharp liberal debaters. Thanks.

[bvw]

There are far better choices than me on FR to explain the relationships.

But I will note a few things. I give more weight to the preamble than most, including the Supreme Court. I consider it to give the desired scope of authority that the Federal Goverment must stay within. I also consider the order of the clauses important. To acheive each desired item in the preamble requires that the prior items be first satisfied. For example, the Union must be formed before all others, even establishing Justice. And domestic tranquility could never be assured without first establishing Justice. It is of some amazement than that "providing for the common defense" requires that the Union have had been formed, Courts and Justice established, and that internal riot and insurrection surpressed. Yet without those three, there would be no whole nation to be commonly defended.

Having provided for common defense, and it's precdendent necessities -- Union, Justice, Tranquility, we then promote the general Welfare.

In addition to the order, note also the verbs used -- to form, to establish, to insure, to promote, to secure. The verb choices have meaning. Note the capitalisations: Order, Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings, Liberty, Posterity. Defense is NOT capitalized! All caps, non-caps are important. So too the modifiers: more perfect, domestic, common, general.

These are all important in both the time of the making and adoption of the Constitution and for all times after. That both now and for-all-times aspect is explicit in the words "to ourselves and our Posterity".

Of all clauses, it may be the "to promote the general Welfare" which is been most abused, and causing strife. The best interpretation I have seen of it it that is a very limited meaning. That it means only that the effect of Federal action and laws be to better the welfare of all -- the general population -- and not special interests, or arbitrarily limited classes. If so held, that limiting would implode such beasts as the tax code, and most pork-barrel allocations of funds. Such a limitation -- that the law be to all, or no law at all, would reduce the whole behemoth to a puppy size.

I also note that clause reading "the Blessings of Liberty" was for a long time in the Convention a different wording. The older wording was 'the Blessings of Property"! Towards the end of the Convention "Liberty" was exchanged for "Property", with some profer that Liberty included all rights and regards to private Property, and freedom of other actions as well.

That is, respect and regard for private property is a fundatmental tenent of our Constitution. That is opposite of the "collective" -- where all property is held in common.

The fact is that the great social utopia sought by socialists and communists (except those totally motivated by spite, hate, and redemption-thru-deconstruction motives -- a sigificant and historically highly important yet by numbers tiny segment) is best achieved in the very framework of ideals laid down in that preamble -- and respect for private property is key! In Liberty, not the despotism of Marx.

[hermes509]

Thanks for the quick response bvw -- I was afraid this thread was dead. I'm not sure what you mean by "There are far better choices than me on FR to explain the relationships." Is there another thread on this topic?

Can you point me in the direction of a good book regarding the convention. I was particularly interested in the property = liberty part. Liberty is indeed a much larger concept than property. In fact, the primary synonym for liberty is freedom. Within that we could talk about economic, political, physical, and social freedom. Property (particulary private) would fall into economic freedom. Such words are too big to be easily defined so I am curious to see some of the comments by the founders regarding their definition of liberty.

So what type of system do we have today in the United States? We have progressive taxation. We also have laws regarding an individuals right to own private property. And for the most part, it seems that our government has little say on marketplace supply and the means of production. Does adding more taxes make us more communist?

I have more questions, but will stop here as the more I write the more I realize how complicted these ideas really are. I think one of the things that is complicating the whole discussion in my mind is the tie in between political systems and economic systems. Communism seems opposed directly to capitalism and I believe that is how Marx wrote about it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Our constitution, on the other hand, seems to exist at some level beyond just economics, with the possible exception that one needs to fund a government somehow and liberty refers to property rights.

[bvw]

Straight capitalism doesn't work, any more than communism. Both form into upside-down pyramind oligarchic tyrannies, following by social breakdown and vassalage.

Nothing in the Constitution establishes Capitalism. But the Constitution, of itself, is against communism. at the Federal level. At the state level, it could be -- a stretch, but sure.

Nothing as to property rights or of contract law, of itself, establish or deny Capitalism. Property rights would deny communism.

Yet a state or commonwealth could charter up as a communist state. In Pennsylvania, we find "commons" -- common areas theoretically available to all to graze livestock on etc. In PA, all the deer are claimed by the state. Even on my property -- the commonwealth claims it owns them. Could expand that concept into full Shaker-ite down-home communism, or even Marx's despotic revoluting kind.

But they break down. The economic models. What is good? Liberty! Respect for property, for marriage, for parents, care for the widows and orphans, the poor, the sick and the respectful burial of the dead. The rest is bosh and posh.

[hermes509]

Straight capitalism doesn't work, any more than communism

What is the relationship of what you call straight capitalism to laissez-faire and ever greater free markets that we hear so much about today? The mantra today seems to be that the government should keep their hands out of everything because they just mess it up. When one moves away from straight capitalism do they necessarily become communist? How are these related to industry regulation and taxes?

Nothing in the Constitution establishes Capitalism. But the Constitution, of itself, is against communism. at the Federal level

Okay, I guess this goes back to the question is Capitalism the opposite of Communism? If the Constitution opposes communism (on the grounds of Liberty?), does it not automatically favor Capitalism? Sorry for the redundant question, but that is my understanding. The initial article on this post seems to support my thinking on this. Progressive taxation is non-capitalistic and anti-American and therefore communist. Did I read this wrong?

Nothing as to property rights or of contract law, of itself, establish or deny Capitalism

I don't mean to be argumentative on this point (just trying to clarify), but here is the definition of capitalism from the Merriam Webster dictionary:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

It is contrasted to communism

a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

It specifically states that Communism denies private property. If the US allows private property, but engages in regulation and progressive taxation what type of state is it? As far as the definition of capitalism goes, it talks about private ownership of capital goods. Is this private property where capital goods = property?

Yet a state or commonwealth could charter up as a communist state. In Pennsylvania, we find "commons" -- common areas theoretically available to all to graze livestock on etc.

What about national parks and national reserves? Aren't these federal "common areas" too? I guess we could classify interestate highways as commons also?

But they break down. The economic models. What is good? Liberty! Respect for property, for marriage, for parents, care for the widows and orphans, the poor, the sick and the respectful burial of the dead. The rest is bosh and posh.

Not a simple subject to clarify by any means. Boortz should have elaborated more. This is the type of stuff I get nailed on. It looks like the word communism is just used as a derogatory adjective to insult any policy that the government uses to tax or regulate or establish common areas? I wonder how this relates to the idea of Corporations? Are these not entities that exist because they are recognized by government?

Thanks

[OXENinFLA]

bump!

[jimbo123]

[Matchett-PI]

"..[Leftists] claim that capitalism inevitably and necessarily encourages individual actions and produces social structures that oppress and harm people. On this point, they are dead wrong. .... The Leftists simply have their facts wrong." ~ Nash

Like it or not -- agree or not -- it is an unarguable fact that America was founded on the Biblical "WORLDVIEW".

Just laws are derived from the broad Christian PRINCIPLES / Judeo-Christian ethic that are a part of that worldview.

Bottom line: Some interesting parallels between the biblical account of spiritual freedom and political- economic freedom should be noted.

For one thing, freedom always has God as its ultimate ground.

For another, freedom must always exist in relationship to law.

The moral law of God identifies definite limits beyond which human freedom under God should not pass.

Liberty should never be turned into license.

Capitalism is the most JUST, moral economic system ever devised.

If you want to know more, read on to see why:

Socialism, Capitalism, and the Bible - Dr. Ronald H. Nash
http://www.summit.org/resources/socialism.htm

Excerpts:

Creator and Freedom; Morality and Sin
Relevant aspects of the biblical world-view:

(1) Certainly the biblical world-view implies that since God is the creator of all that exists, He ultimately is the rightful owner of all that exists. Whatever possessions a human being may acquire, he holds them temporarily as a steward of God and is ultimately accountable to God for how he uses them. However omnipresent greed and avarice may be in the human race, they are clearly incompatible with the moral demands of the biblical world-view.

(2) The biblical world-view also contains important claims about human rights and liberties. All human beings have certain natural rights inherent in their created nature and have certain moral obligations to respect the rights of others. The possibility of human freedom is not a gift of government but a gift from God

The Old Testament tended to focus on the economic and social dimensions of freedom. But gradually, as one moves into the New Testament, a more spiritual dimension of freedom assumes dominance. Freedom in the New Testament is deliverance from bondage to sin and is available only to those who come to know God's truth through Christ and enter into a saving relationship with Christ.

Some interesting parallels between the biblical account of spiritual freedom and political- economic freedom should be noted. For one thing, freedom always has God as it s ultimate ground. For another, freedom must always exist in relationship to law. The moral law of God identifies definite limits beyond which human freedom under God should not pass. Liberty should never be turned into license.

(3) The moral system of the Bible is another key element of the Christian world-view.

While the Ten Commandments do not constitute the entire biblical ethic, they are a good place to begin. But it is important to notice other dimensions of the biblical ethic that have relevance for our subject.

For example, Christians on the Left insist that the biblical ethic condemns individual actions and social structures that oppress people, harm people and favor some at the expense of others. I agree. Where I disagree, however, is with the next step taken by the Leftists.

They claim that capitalism inevitably and necessarily encourages individual actions and produces social structures that oppress and harm people. On this point, they are dead wrong.

Fortunately, the question as to which system actually harms or helps different classes of people is an empirical and not a normative matter. The Leftists simply have their facts wrong.

(4) One final aspect of the Christian world-view must be mentioned: the inescapable fact of human sin and depravity. No economic or political system that assumes the essential goodness of human nature or holds out the dream of a perfect earthly society can possibly be consistent with the biblical world-view.

Peaceful or Violent Exchange?

Now we must examine the three major economic systems that compete for attention: capitalism, socialism and somewhere between, the hybrid known as interventionism or the mixed economy.

One dominant feature of capitalism is economic freedom, the right of people to exchange things voluntarily, free from force, fraud, and theft.

Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to replace the freedom of the market with a group of central planners who exercise control over essential market functions.

There are degrees of socialism as there are degrees of capitalism in the real world.

But basic to any form of socialism is distrust of or contempt for the market process and the desire to replace the freedom of the market with some form of centralized control.

Generally speaking, as one moves along the continuum of socialism to capitalism, one finds the following: the more freedom a socialist allows, the closer his position is to interventionism; the more freedom an interventionist allows, the closer his position is to capitalism.

The crux is the extent to which human beings will be permitted to exercise their own choices in the economic sphere of life.

I will say nothing more about that deplorable economic system known as interventionism, a hopeless attempt to stop on a slippery slope where no stop is possible.

The only way the half- hearted controls of the interventionist can work is if they become the total controls of the socialist. Anything less will result in the kind of troubled and self-damaging economy we have had for the past several decades in the United States.

I shall attempt to get a clearer fix on the real essence both of capitalism and socialism and then see which is more compatible with the biblical world-view.

The best starting point for this comparison is a distinction made most recently by the American economist, Walter Williams.

According to Williams, there are two and only two ways in which something may be exchanged. He called them the peaceful means of exchange and the violent means of exchange.

The peaceful means of exchange may be summed up in the phrase, "If you do something good for me, then I'll do something good for you." When capitalism is understood correctly, it epitomizes the peaceful means of exchange.

The reason people exchange in a real market is because they believe the exchange is good for them. They take advantage of an opportunity to obtain something they want more in exchange for something they desire less.

Capitalism then should be understood as a voluntary system of relationships that utilizes the peaceful means of exchange.

But exchange can also take place by means of force and violence.

In this violent means of exchange, the basic rule of thumb is: "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to you."

This turns out to be the controlling principle of socialism.

Socialism means far more than centralized control of the economic process. It entails the introduction of coercion into economic exchange in order to facilitate the attainment of the goals of the elite who function as the central planners.

One of the great ironies of Christian socialism is that its proponents in effect demand that the State get out its weapons and force people to fulfill the demands of Christian love.

Even if we fail to notice any other contrast between capitalism and socialism, we already have a major difference to relate to the biblical ethic.

One system stresses voluntary and peaceful exchange while the other depends on coercion and violence.

Some Christian socialists object to the way I have set this up.

They profess contempt for the more coercive forms of state-socialism on exhibit in communist countries. They would like us to believe that a more humane, non-coercive kind of socialism is possible.

They would like us to believe that there is a form of socialism, not yet tried anywhere on earth, where the central ideas are cooperation and community and where coercion and dictatorship are precluded.

But they provide very little information about the workings of this more utopian kind of socialism, and they ignore the fact that however humane and voluntary their socialism is supposed to become after it has been put into effect, it will take massive amounts of coercion and theft to get things started.

Socialist Falsehood, Capitalist Facts

To that paradox, add one more: the fact that socialists need capitalism in order to survive.

Unless socialists make allowance for some free markets which provide the pricing information that alone makes rational economic activity possible, socialist economies would have even more problems than those for which they are already notorious.

Consequently, socialism is a gigantic fraud which attacks the market at the same time it is forced to utilize the market process.

But critics of the market try to shift attention away from their own embarrassing problems to claims that capitalism must be abolished or restricted because it is unjust or because it restricts important human freedoms.

Capitalism is supposed to be unchristian because it allegedly gives a predominant place to greed and other unchristian values.

It is alleged to increase poverty and the misery of the poor while, at the same time, it makes a few rich at the expense of the many.

Socialism, on the other hand, is portrayed as the economic system of people who really care for the less fortunate members of society.

Socialism is represented as the economics of compassion. Socialism is also recommended on the ground that it encourages other basic Christian values such as community.

If these claims were true, they would constitute a serious problem for anyone anxious to show that capitalism is compatible with the biblical ethic.

But, of course, the claims are not true. People who make such charges have their facts wrong or are aiming at the wrong target.

The "capitalism" they accuse of being inhumane is a caricature. The system that in fact produces the consequences they deplore turns out to be not capitalism, but interventionism.

Capitalism is not economic anarchy. It recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it recommends.

One of these presuppositions is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange what one owns for something else.

Capitalism also presupposes a system of morality.

Capitalism should be thought of as a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws which protect peoples' rights against force, fraud, theft, and violations of contracts.

"Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not lie" are part of the underlying moral constraints of the system. Economic exchanges can hardly be voluntary if one participant is coerced, deceived, defrauded, or robbed.

Allowing for Human Weakness

Once we grant that consistency with the biblical doctrine of sin is a legitimate test of political and economic systems, it is relatively easy to see how well democratic capitalism scores in this regard.

The limited government willed to Americans by the Founding Fathers was influenced in large measure by biblical considerations about human sin.

If one of the more effective ways of mitigating the effects of human sin in society is dispersing and decentralizing power, the conservative view of government is on the right track.

So too is the conservative vision of economics.

The free market is consistent with the biblical view of human nature in another way.

It recognizes the weaknesses of human nature and the limitations of human knowledge. No one can possibly know enough to manage a complex economy.

No one should ever be trusted with this power.

However, in order for socialism to work, socialism requires a class of omniscient planners to forecast the future, to set prices and to control production.

In the free market system, decisions are not made by an omniscient bureaucratic elite but made across the entire economic system by countless economic agents.

At this point, of course, collectivists will raise another set of objections.

Capitalism, they will counter, may make it difficult for economic power to be consolidated in the hands of the state; but it only makes it easier for vast concentrations of wealth and power to be vested in the hands of private individuals and companies.

But the truth turns out to be something quite different from this widely accepted myth.

It is not the free market that produces monopolies; rather it is governmental intervention with the market that creates the conditions that encourage monopoly.

As for another old charge, that capitalism encourages greed, the truth is just the reverse.

The mechanism of the market neutralizes greed as selfish individuals are forced to find ways of servicing the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.

As we know, various people often approach economic exchanges with motives and objectives that fall short of the biblical ideal.

But no matter how base or selfish a person's motives may be, so long as the rights of the other parties are protected, the greed of the first individual cannot harm them.

As long as greedy individuals are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process, their greed mush be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to exchange their holdings.

Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed.

New Religion of the Left

Finally, some examples of the way in which attempts to ground American liberalism and interventionism or Latin American liberationism on the Bible involve serious distortions of the biblical message.

For instance, consider how radical American evangelicals on the Left abuse the biblical notion of justice.

The basic idea in the Old Testament notion of justice is righteousness and fairness.

But it is essential to the Leftist's cause that he read into biblical pronouncements about justice, contemporary notions of distributive justice.

When the Bible says that Noah was a just man, it does not mean that he would have voted the straight Democratic ticket.

It means simply that he was a righteous man.

Likewise, many Christians on the Left seek to reinterpret Jesus' earthly mission in exclusively economic and political terms.

In their view, Jesus came primarily to deliver those who were poor and oppressed in a material sense. But every member of the human race is poor in the sense of being spiritually bankrupt. Jesus came to end our spiritual poverty by making available the righteousness that God demands and that only God can provide.

It is heresy to state that God's love for people varies in proportion to their wealth and social class.

It is nonsense to suggest that all the poor are good and all the rich are evil.

Once we eliminate the semantic game-playing by which some refer to a non-coercive voluntary utopian type of socialism, it becomes clear that socialism is incompatible with a truly free society. Edmund Opitz has seen this clearly;

As History's vice-regent, the Planner is forced to view men as mass; which is to deny their full stature as persons with rights endowed by the Creator, gifted with free will, possessing the capacity to order their own lives in terms of their convictions.

The man who has the authority and the power to put the masses through their paces, and to punish nonconformists, must be ruthless enough to sacrifice a person to a principle...a commissar who believes that each person is a child of God will eventually yield to a commissar whose ideology is consonant with the demands of his job.

And so, Opitz concludes, "Socialism needs a secular religion to sanction its authoritarian politics, and it replaces the traditional moral order by a code which subordinates the individual to the collective." All of this is justified in the cause of improving economic well-being and in the name of compassion.

The Choice I Make

I think I have said enough to allow me, at least, to make a reasoned choice between capitalism and socialism on the basis of each system's compatibility to the biblical world-view.

The alternative to free exchange is violence.

Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way.

Little can be done to prevent human beings from wanting to be rich. But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation.

Which choice then should I, as a Christian, make in the selection between capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is quite simply the most moral system, the most effective system, and the most equitable system of economic exchange.

When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, there can be no question that it, rather than socialism or interventionism, comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic.

This essay appeared in Imprimis, Volume 14, No. 7, July, 1985. It is used by permission

[Matchett-PI]

Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/November/ernovember.29/11_29_99hamilton.html

"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said. "The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people."

Hamilton found that some form of Calvinism played a role in the lives of at least 23 of the 55 constitutional framers, and that six were Presbyterian (the reform movement founded by John Calvin). Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers." -Elaine Justice

[yoe]

This PPP and FOB and Hill, is just what this country doesn't need, another limp wristed appeaser of terrorism. His life has been spent much like Kofie's giving and going to parties and on the welcoming committees at the right place at the right times. He is somewhat affected, i.e., fey in the theatrical sense; little starch in the spine; certainly not a leader - where does Mrs. Clinton fit into the equation?

[Gracey]

where does Mrs. Clinton fit into the equation?

In my opinion, Mrs. Hitlery Clinton is running for President. Clark will be in holding pattern, until the Demoncrat convention when she is DRAFTED and Clark becomes her VP candidate. This way, Clark can diminish the 9 remaining Democrat candidates until such time. It's..... Clinton/Clark 2004.

[yoe]

Clinton/Clark 2004.
and...all the trash is back in the White House

Once upon a time, there was a remarkable Republic...........

[Gracey]

Clinton/Clark 2004.
and...all the trash is back in the White House

Once upon a time, there was a remarkable Republic...........

---

Even the thought of this makes the tears well up in my eyes. Yuk, for it can happen.

[alrea]

Amazing that the loser Clark once served as a general in the United States Armed Forces. United States FOUNDED on the principle of PROGRESSIVE TAXATION???

The US military is a glorious organization that actually has principles so that the misguided can't cause disruptions or people getting shot.

So Kerry is going to turn control of the armed forces over to the United Nations. Hillary is going to turn the health care system over to your friendly local health inspector. Clark thinks the US was founded on the principle of Progressive taxation.

John Edwards believes that a large percentage of the US gross national product must be turned over to high school seniors, plaintiffs and their trial lawyers.

Al Sharpton is planning to turn over a percentage of the treasury to all Americans of at least 1/12 African descent.

The line forms at the rear folks.