[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Am I the only one that has an issue with this stupid idea? Our government is obviously screwed up beyond believe to even think of this idea!

No. There are a lot of use who have an issue with it. There has been a lot of public sentiment against the bailouts. I'm close to either a) moving somewhere else or B) revolting because of it.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And for what are we doing this exactly? We need some bank failures. I'd let the economy dip for a bit to let these banks feel the sting of stupidity.

That does not encompass the whole issue. The reason these particular bank failures are going to hurt us so much is because federal backing of said banks and financial institutions allows them to make high-risk investments that private banks would not. I agree that they should fail, and that the economy will suffer because of it. What I doubt is that this will change anything. Once th U.S. recovers (more or less) from this fiscal crisis, it will probably pursue the same policy, and fail again. But that's politics. People want stuff for free, no surprise there. They want the State to give it to them. Many of them do not realize how this damages the economic system over time, so when their particular bank, which they foolishly invested in fails, they raise hue and cry, demanding that the state take action.
Ironically, many of these people do not vote, but legislators listen to their pleas to stay in office. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak.

Here is for all the Atheists - This is due to people turning their back on god by the way. With that, goes the morals since every man is left to his own devices to create his own morals (Chaos). 'No' morals is the result. Greed rules. When greed rules, you have issues. One being the lenders greed to shell out loans that they know are extremely risky. The other is on the consumer side in that the consumer is greedy and buys more house than they can afford to try and make a buck.

As a libertarian I can't totally agree with that. Darwinism exists in both sociopolitical and moral spheres as well as nature (of course) and economics.
You cannot legislate or force people to conform to a certain set of morals. No nation in the history of mankind has ever succeded at that. It simply cannot be done.

But what you can do is let those with poor morals, and poor competitive(greedy) practices fail. As long as competition is preserved the consumers will not stand for harmful business practices. They simply vote out the offending entity with their dollars. Some suffer from those type of businesses. Caveat Emptor. It is up to those of us who believe in helping others to shoulder their debt at our expense.
Isn't that the Christian way?

Welcome to our declining world. You can't save it either without a standard moral base and that only comes from one place. This is a world with a 'lack of standards' in the morals area, which ultimately leads to all the fighting you see throughout the world and and all the problems as well. Think of what a military would be like without standards? Now think of a world without god, which leads to many problems such as we are seeing.

We already know what militaries without standards are like. They run rampant all over the world. Arguably, they have for most of history. Just look at Africa.

I would not argue that are world is declining, but it is merely following a cycle. People make the same decisions over and over again. History repeats itself. It isn't like we've never seen a world-leading superpower fighting for its life and facing economic disaster that eventually sparks a cataclysmic war before.

Don't forget that at one time there was a world that knew nothing but God (or whatever deities) and people suffered greatly. Even within the Catholic domains people were subjected to indescribable tortures and deprivation.
What finally freed the Western world from religious domination was the introduction of religious competition. The 95 theses changed the future of the Western world forever.

When you say God I assume that you mean God in the Christian context, but do not forget that many other cultures have a god, or gods, or whatever. Islamic extremism is fueled by a belief in a "one true god". Historically, Christianity has fallen into this theocratic trap as well. (ahem, Inquisition, Puritanism, Flagellants)

I will not argue that our world is heading into another historical low point. Every time a world leading nation makes irresponsible fiscal decision it leads to war. And every time, the wars get worse. And as such, the consequences get worse.
We are in the 11th hour now but the U.S. can still avoid this downfall and maybe help the rest of the world by strenthening the world economy via reduction of governemtn and reintroduction of a lightly-regulated private sector.

There is not, and never will be a 'standard moral base'. If I see a person who seems immoral, I will try to show them the Christian way. If they refute it, oh well, I tried. I cannot force my beliefs upon them and I doubt any religion (save Islamic Extremists, off the top of my head) would approve.

Now watch the Atheists frothing mouths fling wide open! This will be entertaining. Problem is guys, if Darwin couldn't find a way to incorporate morals (let alone helping others with no personal gain) into his theories, neither can you (Two flaws in his theories right there that can debunk all of them outright some day). So tough luck beating that one back!

Easily beaten back. Friendship, social respect, power, love, these are all resources like any other. People compete over resources, just as animals do.
There is no real altruism , but people invest in things they want. Sometimes, they choose to invest in other people.
Who has ever invested time and money in a partner they did not want to form a relationship with unless it was out of fear of social repurcussions?
Who has ever given to charity and did not feel better for doing so?
Some people even pay for companionship in the form of escort services or prostitutes, but they would not do this unless they felt it was worth it.

People with good morals are more likely to value other people and their sentiments more than money or power, that much is true.

But no matter what kind of moral system one might try to impose, there will always be an elite. An elite that is willing to bend the system to their own ends, and justify to themselves the reason for doing so. Sometimes all they need to do is think of themselves as elite to become plutocratic tyrants. History is full of examples.

I would never advocate the merging of state and religion in any way, for any purpose because of these dangers, and that includes moral legislation.


That being said, I would certainly advocate legislation that prohibits any direct violations of others' freedoms. Things like 'indecent exposure', taking advantage of children in any way, fraud, theft, murder... things like that.

I am not a person of such intelligence as to decide what qualifies as an offense against personal freedom, but we did have some who made a decent attempt, once. They failed in certain respects, but their philosophy was fairly sound at the time, considering the issues they faced.

We should embrace their way of thinking; prohibitng the violation of personal freedoms by government or other citizens or external states.

I am far from an atheist, but I have respect for God's ability to design a system that will perpetually renew itself despite the failings of mortals. History is but a repetion of the same cycles in the same ways. War, peace, economic prosperity, economic decline, revolution, a shift in global power, war.....and so on and so forth.


Does the New Testament not teach tolerance and forgiveness? Have the U.S. and other free nations not prospered from such practices? Have those nations which do not embrace such philosophies not suffered?

From a religious perspective, the U.S. has sinned on many occasions, attempting to force beliefs upon others. But all these times goodwill was what motivated the American people to support such missives.

What we must do now is accept that sometimes the basic (constitutional) tenets of our society are rejected by some. We msut let them fail, then, so we do not harm ourselves and the future by allowing them to continue to exist beyond their means. And we must embrace this policy ourselves. If the U.S. follows the path of nations that have fallen before it we will fall as well.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilites, and from each acoording to what they wish. There is no society that has not benefitted from such a policy, and such a policy can walk hand in hand with morality and religion if it so chooses.


Even if you choose to discount all of my arguments about tolerance, trade, and charity, there is no arguing that theocratic states always fail catastrophically in the end. There is no historical precedent to support this, period.


Morality is not something that one can control, and it has little to do with national prosperity. As long as the state enforces policy that enables free trade, the sytem will work on its' cycle, gradually increasing prosperity. Should the state step in and mandate moral practices or business regulation, the state will fail from debt as it attempts to enforce such policies, not to mention that such policies will grow exponentially as people take advantage of the system and new legilastion is required to close the gaps (and open new ones).

If people choose to be immoral in trade or life, let them fail. It is their own fault. For the same reasons we would not support a bank bailout, we should not support enforcement of morality. In the end, both accomplish litte, and the result is the same.