A View on International Politics

[Cjwinnit]

Good post rahma...

 

[BobbieDog]

In short, the ME did not isolate itself due to religious intolerance, but rather as a reaction to the disintegration of the

Ottoman Empire and as a reaction to European colonialism.

Check.

Clear, simple, adequate explanation.



Regards EU Europe, and its military.

The intervention strength of France lies in the relationships it has maintained, and the diplomatic culture attached to that.

It seems to me, that time and again, it is the French that are in position to get some troops on the ground. Not vast clanking offensive armies, or their stand-off modern ballistic equivalents: but two or three hundred pairs of boots on the ground, where that level of quickly deployed policing force, can make all sorts of difference to how a circumstance unfolds.

France is way ahead of the game here: intervene on some consensual basis; with no more than adequate force.



The question of separate armed forces, attached to nominally sovereign states, and having historical basis in offense and defense against immediate neighbours: is an albatross that EU Europe only continues to wear around its neck, for fairly crass electoral reasons.

Overall the EU does need some defensive capability: it must have what it takes to defend itself against Russia, the USA, Africa, and any future bloc that might emerge in the ME; but that defensive requirement can be much reduced by establishing international cooperation.

Internally, within EU Europe we drop down to policing: EU law, like all law, must retain this ultimate sanction of legitimated force; but, operationally we look to consensus being established, and the sanction not having to be invoked.

Any military power that EU Europe then projects beyond its own territory must again have this mark of policing: where this is exercised within emerging framework of international law; international consensus is again what is sought.



What armed forces EU Europe then needs for these purposes, is a very complex and long term question: one that has seldom yet been adequately raised; and one which tends to be subverted by the electoral exigencies of individual states.



I can't summarise all this as well as has Rahma summarised what she addressed: but the idea of a military that polices within international and EU law; has to be some central part of any future.

 

[Shane Roach]

Allow me to step in for a minute and disagree with you there. The decline of the Middle East is a long time in the making, and has little to do with religious intolerance. It has more to do with the decline and collapse of the Ottoman Empire then.

The recent increase in Islamist organizations comes after the failure of colonial ideals, and the failure of secular arab nationalism. People are disapointed with the western ideas brought back by the upper class that study in Europe and the US, as those ideas have not lead to a significant quality of life improvement for most ME-ers. Secular arab nationalism also failed.

The same holds true for secular arab nationalism. Lead by Nasser in the 60s, the Levant and North African countries attempted unite in pan arabism, but because the governments suppressed religious groups, as well as others, they did not last long.

The gulf states have been their sordid story, where monarchs ruled of their little dust patches until oil showed up. From there, they were busier ammasing earthly wealth then promoting Islam.

The rise of Islamism, that is, islam as a political, economic, religious and way of life identity, did not gain popular support until the 1980s in the levant and north africa, while who knows if it ever has in the gulf.

In short, the ME did not isolate itself due to religious intolerance, but rather as a reaction to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and as a reaction to European colonialism.

I have to disagree here. It took less than a century from Islam's advent for it to arrive on the world scene as a political power base, and it continued on, conquoring North Africa and the Middle East. The religion in and of itself seems to supress any other expressions or ideas, and even the two religions that it tolerates in some measure, Christianity and Judaism, are to be legally held in second class citizenship according to the religion itself. It is not a faith designed to live peacefully in open societies.

Since the American hostages were captured in the 70's, it seems to me that some popularity of Islamism must have been around at that time, since the Ayatollah took power at that point and made Iran an Islamic nation.

You say people are dissapointed in wester ideals. I would say yes, one of which is freedom of religion, wich is something not a single Islaamic nation seems capable of accepting.

Is all of this the fault of the religion itself? I'm in no position to say, as I don't know enough about it, but my first instinct is to say no. Most likely it is a combination of a lot of things, including perhaps the breakdown in the Ottoman Empire that you mention, but whatever the multiple causes, the bottom line is that Islam has a long history of having real problems with sharing with its neighbors in any nation where it becomes the majority.

 

[rahma]

I have to disagree here. It took less than a century from Islam's advent for it to arrive on the world scene as a political power base, and it continued on, conquoring North Africa and the Middle East.

Islam was caried with the advancing Arab armies, just as previous religions had, as previous empires had risen and fallen in the same stretch of land for the thousands of years. The arab empires were no different.

The religion in and of itself seems to supress any other expressions or ideas, and even the two religions that it tolerates in some measure, Christianity and Judaism, are to be legally held in second class citizenship according to the religion itself. It is not a faith designed to live peacefully in open societies.

"Open society" is a relatively new term. Islam has developed in a world in which an open society was not even a twinkle in someone's eye. If it rules, it is a system a system of government, an economic system, a religion, all the constructs of a society, so of course Islam as a government would not live peacefully in an open society when it is the foundations of a society in and of itself.

Islam as the religion, as promulgated by Tariq Ramadan, Hamza Yusuf and others, seeks to find a religious identity that is not at odds with a western identity.

Since the American hostages were captured in the 70's, it seems to me that some popularity of Islamism must have been around at that time, since the Ayatollah took power at that point and made Iran an Islamic nation.

I was speaking Sunni Islamism, which is a far different animal from the Shia form of rule. I deliberately did not include Iran in my original post, because the history and development of the modern country is far different from North African, the Levant and the Gulf States, in that direct western influence caused the 1979 Islamic revolution, whereas Islamist movements in other countries are more of a reaction to homegrown power mongers.

In the 1950s, the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, viewed as a puppet of the west and sought to impliment a democracy, with Mohammad Mosaddeq as the Prime Minister. Because the new government stepped up the nationalization of the oil industry, this was seen as a threat to the Eisenhower administration, which orchestrated a coup to overthrow the populist leader and restore the Shah to power.

Since then, the Shah has been seen as an illigitimate ruler, out of touch with the Iranian population. The 1979 revolution is the culmination of the people's dissatisfaction with the Shah and his US supporters.

While Shia Islamism crested in the late 1970s, Sunni Islamism did not reach it's peak until the 1980s. This movement began in the early 20th century, as a reaction to the secularization of society and the importation of European government systems, education systems, and cultural norms. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt was founded in the late 1920s, but did not reach a high level of popular support until the housing and food bubble burst in the 1980s.

In times of crisis, people turn to Islam as an alternative. The problems in the ME are not caused by Islam, but rather by a tension between leaders who are corrupt, a government system that was imposed and not voted upon, by people living in abject poverty, and by those who they see as their heros, the Islamists, who provide them with food, shelter and hope of a better life.

You say people are dissapointed in wester ideals. I would say yes, one of which is freedom of religion, wich is something not a single Islaamic nation seems capable of accepting.

Freedom of religion is not one of the issues that causes problems. The problems are caused by the implimentation of forms of government by colonialists, and rule by leaders who are out of touch with the majority of their population.

The upper, ruling class is thoroughly Europeanized, and yet they do nothing to help the poverty that wracks their nations. This is the failure that people see, which causes them to turn to Islamists.

Most likely it is a combination of a lot of things, including perhaps the breakdown in the Ottoman Empire that you mention, but whatever the multiple causes, the bottom line is that Islam has a long history of having real problems with sharing with its neighbors in any nation where it becomes the majority.

I would suggest you study history of the world as a whole here, and point that finger to everyone. Until perhaps the last 100 years, no nation had been able to share with their neighbors, except perhaps the Ottoman Empire, which allowed religious minorities to govern themselves.

 

[Shane Roach]

Islam was caried with the advancing Arab armies, just as previous religions had, as previous empires had risen and fallen in the same stretch of land for the thousands of years. The arab empires were no different.

Appears to be somewhat of a wrong statement. Rome, Greece, Syria, China, all seem to have done a lot of conquest without getting too seriously into changing the religion of the places they conquored.

"Open society" is a relatively new term. Islam has developed in a world in which an open society was not even a twinkle in someone's eye. If it rules, it is a system a system of government, an economic system, a religion, all the constructs of a society, so of course Islam as a government would not live peacefully in an open society when it is the foundations of a society in and of itself.

No doubt things have never been as open anywhere in history than they are now, but still, I point you to the other societies I pointed out where economics were the driving force, rather than religion.

Islam as the religion, as promulgated by Tariq Ramadan, Hamza Yusuf and others, seeks to find a religious identity that is not at odds with a western identity.

That's good to hear!

I was speaking Sunni Islamism, which is a far different animal from the Shia form of rule. I deliberately did not include Iran in my original post, because the history and development of the modern country is far different from North African, the Levant and the Gulf States, in that direct western influence caused the 1979 Islamic revolution, whereas Islamist movements in other countries are more of a reaction to homegrown power mongers.

In the 1950s, the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, viewed as a puppet of the west and sought to impliment a democracy, with Mohammad Mosaddeq as the Prime Minister. Because the new government stepped up the nationalization of the oil industry, this was seen as a threat to the Eisenhower administration, which orchestrated a coup to overthrow the populist leader and restore the Shah to power.

Yes, and never mind his ties to communists and the declared war of Communism against all the rest of the free world........ This sort of thing wears me out. Do you think the American govt just looks around constantly for little country's to make coups in for no reason whatsoever? Iran began to pick a side in an ongoing military struggle. They are not some neutral victim of the horrid Americans.

Since then, the Shah has been seen as an illigitimate ruler, out of touch with the Iranian population. The 1979 revolution is the culmination of the people's dissatisfaction with the Shah and his US supporters.

And yet there is a great struggle there still for freedom...

While Shia Islamism crested in the late 1970s, Sunni Islamism did not reach it's peak until the 1980s. This movement began in the early 20th century, as a reaction to the secularization of society and the importation of European government systems, education systems, and cultural norms. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt was founded in the late 1920s, but did not reach a high level of popular support until the housing and food bubble burst in the 1980s.

In times of crisis, people turn to Islam as an alternative. The problems in the ME are not caused by Islam, but rather by a tension between leaders who are corrupt, a government system that was imposed and not voted upon, by people living in abject poverty, and by those who they see as their heros, the Islamists, who provide them with food, shelter and hope of a better life.

Freedom of religion is not one of the issues that causes problems. The problems are caused by the implimentation of forms of government by colonialists, and rule by leaders who are out of touch with the majority of their population.

Interestingly, when the people in western societies stopped blaming their troubles on foreigners and focused their attention on internal change, that's when progress was made. Perhaps if there was less focusing on the west because they buy things from people and support people who don't ally themselved with hostile nations and more focusing on the leaders who are corrupt within those nations, there would be progress. The US has a long history of helping nations who struggle to install democratic rule and want to be governed by people who are willing to work together internationally for peace.

The upper, ruling class is thoroughly Europeanized, and yet they do nothing to help the poverty that wracks their nations. This is the failure that people see, which causes them to turn to Islamists.

I would suggest you study history of the world as a whole here, and point that finger to everyone. Until perhaps the last 100 years, no nation had been able to share with their neighbors, except perhaps the Ottoman Empire, which allowed religious minorities to govern themselves.

I don't know if you have some sort of degree or what, but I have done a good deal of reading, and some of the things you have said don't jive with my understanding of history, which I have pointed out. Another thing to consider when you advise people to study history is that every single version of history is going to have spin in it anyhow. It is best just to present your beliefs, and not to assume someone hasn't read any history.

Thanks for writing, and I hope we can continue to discuss this. Please let me know if I seem to become somehow too personal. I would really like to learn more about what you believe but at the same time if you are going to present it in a manner that is more or less meant to convince, I feel the the urge to argue the other side of the coin. Especially when our reaction to the ME is cast as having been entirely due to some sort of imperialism. I hardly consider resisting the USSR a form of imperialism. People made a choice who they wanted to align themselves to, and that stops it from being a question of whether someone was just minding their own business and the mean Americans came in imperialistically and interefered.

 

[rahma]

My appologies if I sounded hoity toity or high and mighty. I do have a degree with an emphasis in Middle Eastern politics, though And I didn't mean to imply that you had not read history, just that there are certain aspects you may have missed. Most people haven't studied middle eastern history, and thus lots of misconceptions run wild.

I'm out of town at the moment, but inshaAllah (God willing) I'd like to continue the discussion when I get home.

 

[Shane Roach]

My appologies if I sounded hoity toity or high and mighty. I do have a degree with an emphasis in Middle Eastern politics, though And I didn't mean to imply that you had not read history, just that there are certain aspects you may have missed. Most people haven't studied middle eastern history, and thus lots of misconceptions run wild.

I'm out of town at the moment, but inshaAllah (God willing) I'd like to continue the discussion when I get home.

Likely there are a lot of things I should learn from you. I hope likewise that whatever of my own statements and ideas that might seem somehow improper you will be able to look past long enough to explain to me what it is you mean.

 

[mindlight]

The original poster spoke in terms of the Republicans being better for international politics and the democrats for domestic stuff. He said given the importance of the international political stances of republicans and democrats the Republicans were the better choice in the coming election for American voters. People went on to clarify the difference between old and new Europe and whether it mattered and also to raise questions about how the Middle east and Islam fitted into this vision. It has been a very interesting discussion and I have found it fascinating reading.

My own view as a Brit looking on the American political elections and someone who does not share the antiAmericanism of Old Europe is as follows:

1) First America does have a role in Europe as in the rest of the world and I believe its mandate is as a nation that is able and willing to defend the freedoms of people to live and worship as they please and also the stability of the general world order. Pax Brittannica kept the peace for a hundred years so lets hope pax Americana does even better. Europe even collectively and even adding Russia AND China is not a match for the Americans militarily and talk of a separate defence identity is dangerous and silly in my view. The stability of the world depends on a European American Japanese alliance of which because of the size of its defence budget and the relative effectiveness of its forces the Americans are clearly the ruling partner.
The British and eastern Europeans and Italian Government (though not people) are happy to accept that and wise enough to see its advantages. The French are not and the current German administration (which is rather weak) has found it convenient to play on anti-American feelings aroused by the Iraq war in peace loving Germany (So maybe its time for the Christian democrats to be back in power in germany) The logical consequence of all this is that America must ally itself with the friendly part of a divided Europe. The French vision of a Europe united under the Tricolour will then never be achievable while it holds to an antiAmerican stance in international politics and so long as it continually attempts to undermine American power for its own international advantage while America will still have the allies it needs to achieve its objectives. America does not need a united Europe as a military ally, it needs New Europe for diplomatic purposes and for bases relative to key threats in the Middle east or possible future ones in Russia or China. I believe as Iraq unfolds over the next years the case for reform in the Middle east will strengthen and its effects become more apparent. This could be a traumatic time however and an effective American military presence in the ME and in Europe is therefore essential.

2) I am not so sure that the democrats are any better economically than the Republicans (they rode the republican wave initiated by GW senior under Clinton - but it was already petering out) - it will take a second term for the Republicans to prove my own conviction that lower taxes are better in the long run than higher ones for a nations prosperity. I believe the choice between spending or tax cuts raised by the deficit can be resolved by a more sensible taxation policy and by reform of government and with slight rises in overall tax and lowering of spending. But it will take a single party with good control of Congress and the White House to achieve this and to enforce the right decisions for America. I think it would be far better for America if George Bush had the power to effect proper economic reform with a majority in Congress as well as the presidency. For example effective health care reform could save billions while at the same time providing better and more comprehensive care. Also more sensible energy taxes could cut the trade deficit and lead to reductions in taxes on profits and incomes. The Democrats could not push that through only someone with the oil companies as allies could do that.

3) The Cultural agenda is as important as the economic and political one. The democrats support abortion, gay marriage and are generally less Christian than their opponents in their language and convictions. I believe poor people in America and in the rest of the world will benefit more from an administration that fixes the economy in the long term and keeps America and the world stable.

 

[BobbieDog]

American interference in regional politics will become less and less tolerated, globally.
Pax Americana mythology is merely fascism dressed up.
People are prepared to fight and die, in struggle against such fascism; and it would be foolish to fail to recognise that.

Where the USA comes to again be willing to be one of a family of nations, then all this changes.
The November election has global implications.



Now, what we have to achieve is a mutuality, where the alternate perspectives here proposed by mindlight and myself, and whatever others there might be; can be factored into a dialogue.
I propose that we can only achieve the grounds of such dialogue as God. Squeeze them onto any narrower grounds, and you tend to end up in violent conflict.

The peace of Jerusalem is also a metaphor for the conditions of peaceful resolution more generally.



God of Christianity, G_d of the Judaic, Allah of Islam, and the god of the secularly scientific and humanistic: all need to be factored into the God ground of any dialogue that has hope of grasping the current global conflict and crisis.
Fall back from this universally demanding standard, and the God and perspective on global matters which we have, merely reflects one ethnicity and its prejudices.
It is in this light that achieving the genuine peace of Jerusalem is fulcrum of so much human prospect.

 

[Shane Roach]

My opinion of Dems in general being bettern for the economy is that they tend to be more responsible with home matters. Simply put, the Republican game plan for domestic politics for some two and a half decades now has been to spend a lot, lower taxes, and then use the burgeoning debt to shoe horn economic systems here down our throats that don't much take the working class into account.

Debt is a form of slavery, and being coninually dragged back and back again into "public debt" by the representatives of what essentially forms an economic elite in our country begins to get on my nerves. It's a little complicated, but the basic picture is that the people voting for the US to go into debt are the ones getting paid the interest AND getting the contracts for what "we the people" are buying.

IMHO.

 

[BobbieDog]

My opinion of Dems in general being bettern for the economy is that they tend to be more responsible with home matters. Simply put, the Republican game plan for domestic politics for some two and a half decades now has been to spend a lot, lower taxes, and then use the burgeoning debt to shoe horn economic systems here down our throats that don't much take the working class into account.

Debt is a form of slavery, and being coninually dragged back and back again into "public debt" by the representatives of what essentially forms an economic elite in our country begins to get on my nerves. It's a little complicated, but the basic picture is that the people voting for the US to go into debt are the ones getting paid the interest AND getting the contracts for what "we the people" are buying.

IMHO.

This is taut analysis. Useful and very American in that. An idea that puts the large in human measure: takes command of politics onto main street, and into the discourse of citizens.
Interestingly, and something sometimes not fully explicated: the Islamic objection to the American way, is as ecenomic as was the Communist objection; for Islam, that usury and interest become central in an economy, is antithetical to the speech of Allah, just as it may also be a bit of a problem for the heart of Jesus.

 

[mindlight]

My opinion of Dems in general being bettern for the economy is that they tend to be more responsible with home matters. Simply put, the Republican game plan for domestic politics for some two and a half decades now has been to spend a lot, lower taxes, and then use the burgeoning debt to shoe horn economic systems here down our throats that don't much take the working class into account.

Debt is a form of slavery, and being coninually dragged back and back again into "public debt" by the representatives of what essentially forms an economic elite in our country begins to get on my nerves. It's a little complicated, but the basic picture is that the people voting for the US to go into debt are the ones getting paid the interest AND getting the contracts for what "we the people" are buying.

IMHO.

My experience of most rich people is that they have a lot of hangers on who depend on their largesse whether for employment or for charity. The key philosophical issue here is whether the nations public government should be responsible for care of poorer people or whether private initiatives should also be allowed to play their part. Faith based or corporation backed initiatives may never be the entire solution but they can be a significant part of it and the state should coordinate and provide cash for successful examples in the interests of efficiency as well as fairness. In my own country where the state is larger and more centralised I believe the lack of real competition to state institutions has rendered them grossly inefficient with tax payers money in many areas. So I can agree with your analysis that a certain elite is being empowered by a high spend low tax debt increase but dispute whether or not this is a bad thing in the long run for your nation. This elite can ultimately hold the government to account for bad practice as that government will be in hoc to it. On the other hand I think Government policy and practice in the US also need considerable refinement and energy taxes, abolition of inheritance tax and a massive reform of your very expensive health service would all have to be a part of that.

Whats the difference of being in slavery to the impersonal state as final arbiter of all ones rights and freedoms or being in hoc to an elite (anyone can potentially join) who at least have faces and whose different perceptions on how America should be run are accountable to the ballot box- e.g. kellys wife is one of them and the Bush family also. To the man on the street it makes precious little difference - so long as he gets what he needs to live and prosper from cradle to grave why should he care.

 

[mindlight]

American interference in regional politics will become less and less tolerated, globally.
Pax Americana mythology is merely fascism dressed up.
People are prepared to fight and die, in struggle against such fascism; and it would be foolish to fail to recognise that.

Where the USA comes to again be willing to be one of a family of nations, then all this changes.
The November election has global implications.



Now, what we have to achieve is a mutuality, where the alternate perspectives here proposed by mindlight and myself, and whatever others there might be; can be factored into a dialogue.
I propose that we can only achieve the grounds of such dialogue as God. Squeeze them onto any narrower grounds, and you tend to end up in violent conflict.

The peace of Jerusalem is also a metaphor for the conditions of peaceful resolution more generally.



God of Christianity, G_d of the Judaic, Allah of Islam, and the god of the secularly scientific and humanistic: all need to be factored into the God ground of any dialogue that has hope of grasping the current global conflict and crisis.
Fall back from this universally demanding standard, and the God and perspective on global matters which we have, merely reflects one ethnicity and its prejudices.
It is in this light that achieving the genuine peace of Jerusalem is fulcrum of so much human prospect.

Pax Americana is not fascism when the vast majority of nations in which American forces are based are happy with their presence. Should the democratically elected government of iraq request it in january the Americans and British will probably leave there also. Americans have not acquired territory like the British did as a result of their military efforts they have set nations like France and germany and Japan free to prosper. Similarly their intervention in Yugoslavia was crucial as it was in Iraq. Fascism is what was displaced in Iraq and in Afghanistan not what America has brought to these places.

God is the ground of all conversation about international politics as he runs the show and the peace of Jerusalem is in scripture and in reality a pivotal issue. We may mean different things by this and have different views on how it will be achieved also.

 

[Shane Roach]

My experience of most rich people is that they have a lot of hangers on who depend on their largesse whether for employment or for charity. The key philosophical issue here is whether the nations public government should be responsible for care of poorer people or whether private initiatives should also be allowed to play their part. Faith based or corporation backed initiatives may never be the entire solution but they can be a significant part of it and the state should coordinate and provide cash for successful examples in the interests of efficiency as well as fairness. In my own country where the state is larger and more centralised I believe the lack of real competition to state institutions has rendered them grossly inefficient with tax payers money in many areas. So I can agree with your analysis that a certain elite is being empowered by a high spend low tax debt increase but dispute whether or not this is a bad thing in the long run for your nation. This elite can ultimately hold the government to account for bad practice as that government will be in hoc to it. On the other hand I think Government policy and practice in the US also need considerable refinement and energy taxes, abolition of inheritance tax and a massive reform of your very expensive health service would all have to be a part of that.

Whats the difference of being in slavery to the impersonal state as final arbiter of all ones rights and freedoms or being in hoc to an elite (anyone can potentially join) who at least have faces and whose different perceptions on how America should be run are accountable to the ballot box- e.g. kellys wife is one of them and the Bush family also. To the man on the street it makes precious little difference - so long as he gets what he needs to live and prosper from cradle to grave why should he care.

The idea that people who work are recieving "largesse" from people who own seems backwards to me. Rather, people who own are in a position, held because of the power of the government, which they buy, to horde an inordinate amount of the profit of what they make.

It all boils down to who you think the land itself belongs to I guess. If you honestly believe it belongs to whoever bought it or inherited it, then sure, those who own the means of production of raw materials and industry have a right to decide. If, on the other hand, the world belongs to God and people who find themselves in positions of power are to behave as good stewards of what they have, then to speak of the "largesse" of the rich towards "hangers on" is to turn the relationship on its head. "THe laborer is worthy of his wages." And I also point out that in the OT, land outside of cities was to be redistributed every 50 years. So...

I don't mean this as a religious injunction towards the government by the way. I merely point it out because a lot of people seem to want to argue some moral imperative for the wealthy being allowed to keep their lion's shares from a moral standpoint, whereas I find that view untennable at least from the Christian viewpoint.

 

[JVD]

It all boils down to who you think the land itself belongs to I guess. If you honestly believe it belongs to whoever bought it or inherited it,

Who do you think it belongs to?

 

[Shane Roach]

Who do you think it belongs to?

It appears that it is owned by whatever government is able to hold onto it. It's proper or moral use it seems to me is to be made available systematically for the equal use of all, rather than being horded by a few and used as a lever to force others into servitude.

There was a time when the land belonged to the King, legally speaking. The Bible seems to argue it belongs to God. Whatever moral view you take, it seems clear to me that using wealth or ownership of lands and the means of production in order to force people into a corner and then require them either to add to your already unfair advantage by working for you without recourse to any commonly understood idea of what would be fair, or else not be allowed to work (and hence to have basic necessities) at all, is morally bankrupt.

 

[mindlight]

The idea that people who work are recieving "largesse" from people who own seems backwards to me. Rather, people who own are in a position, held because of the power of the government, which they buy, to horde an inordinate amount of the profit of what they make.

It all boils down to who you think the land itself belongs to I guess. If you honestly believe it belongs to whoever bought it or inherited it, then sure, those who own the means of production of raw materials and industry have a right to decide. If, on the other hand, the world belongs to God and people who find themselves in positions of power are to behave as good stewards of what they have, then to speak of the "largesse" of the rich towards "hangers on" is to turn the relationship on its head. "THe laborer is worthy of his wages." And I also point out that in the OT, land outside of cities was to be redistributed every 50 years. So...

I don't mean this as a religious injunction towards the government by the way. I merely point it out because a lot of people seem to want to argue some moral imperative for the wealthy being allowed to keep their lion's shares from a moral standpoint, whereas I find that view untennable at least from the Christian viewpoint.

I believe that mismanaged wealth tends to get lost in time anyway as people fritter it away. The land itself belongs to God and every corporate executive or rich shareholder or landowner is accountable to God for how he manages the resources he has been given. The key concept here is stewardship and the key question relevant to this debate is whether or not the state or the people are the better judge of how to use the resources of a nation. I believe the state must do certain big picture things like military, law and order, foreign policy and also major infrastructure projects and the regulation and provision of key public services. BUt that the role fo the state has expanded beyond its remit in recent years and that to some extent it is now the people who need to be empowered.

The retort to this has been that if only the rich are empowered then the people per see are not. BUt since rich people are incorporated into communities it is not only they who benefit from their wealth but also those in association with them and who can follow their example. Rich people will be judged for how they care for those who are poor and weak. It is God who will judge them it should not be the state except where there are clear violations of law or tax evasion.

A definition of work is perhaps required. It may not simply be tilling the fields and pulling out thorns and thistles any more from the cursed earth. Work in service industries, in IT, in Finance and Insurance and banking and in top executive positions can be for the production, sale and distribution of virtual products. One could argue that an effective steward of a fortune was working through the system he allows his wealth to utilise. By investing it in certain bonds he makes possible that a nation can borrow money for public services. By investing in shares he allows companies to raise the finance they need to make money. By guaranteeing insurance he allows work to go ahead with a major construction project.

The point is one does not have to be a sweaty 14 hour a day worker to be working. Someone can make wealth work with a few well made decisions and then spend the rest of the day on the golf course chatting with other executives. Some people will work 14 hours and produce a faulty product which no one wants to buy. Others will work 2 hours and produce a product that everyone wants and which they will pay more for. One man will slave 3 days trying to resolve an issue with a IT system. Another will glance at the issue resolve it in 5 minutes and then get back to chatting about politics with his mates. Who is the more effective steward of that IT system - surely the one who keeps it working. Does his being lazy make him an inappropriate choice for the job.

I think that this is why God allows inequality. Because at different times management of the worlds resources requires certain people rather than others to be in charge. Today Bill gates is rich maybe tommorrow some industrial robot manufacturer or hydrogen fuel cell manufacturer or space industries bod will be the one to strike it big. It Gods invisible hand that guides the market process and also the hearts of the kings who moderate its worst consequences.

 

[Shane Roach]

I believe that mismanaged wealth tends to get lost in time anyway as people fritter it away. The land itself belongs to God and every corporate executive or rich shareholder or landowner is accountable to God for how he manages the resources he has been given. The key concept here is stewardship and the key question relevant to this debate is whether or not the state or the people are the better judge of how to use the resources of a nation. I believe the state must do certain big picture things like military, law and order, foreign policy and also major infrastructure projects and the regulation and provision of key public services. BUt that the role fo the state has expanded beyond its remit in recent years and that to some extent it is now the people who need to be empowered.

The retort to this has been that if only the rich are empowered then the people per see are not. BUt since rich people are incorporated into communities it is not only they who benefit from their wealth but also those in association with them and who can follow their example. Rich people will be judged for how they care for those who are poor and weak. It is God who will judge them it should not be the state except where there are clear violations of law or tax evasion.

A definition of work is perhaps required. It may not simply be tilling the fields and pulling out thorns and thistles any more from the cursed earth. Work in service industries, in IT, in Finance and Insurance and banking and in top executive positions can be for the production, sale and distribution of virtual products. One could argue that an effective steward of a fortune was working through the system he allows his wealth to utilise. By investing it in certain bonds he makes possible that a nation can borrow money for public services. By investing in shares he allows companies to raise the finance they need to make money. By guaranteeing insurance he allows work to go ahead with a major construction project.

The point is one does not have to be a sweaty 14 hour a day worker to be working. Someone can make wealth work with a few well made decisions and then spend the rest of the day on the golf course chatting with other executives. Some people will work 14 hours and produce a faulty product which no one wants to buy. Others will work 2 hours and produce a product that everyone wants and which they will pay more for. One man will slave 3 days trying to resolve an issue with a IT system. Another will glance at the issue resolve it in 5 minutes and then get back to chatting about politics with his mates. Who is the more effective steward of that IT system - surely the one who keeps it working. Does his being lazy make him an inappropriate choice for the job.

I think that this is why God allows inequality. Because at different times management of the worlds resources requires certain people rather than others to be in charge. Today Bill gates is rich maybe tommorrow some industrial robot manufacturer or hydrogen fuel cell manufacturer or space industries bod will be the one to strike it big. It Gods invisible hand that guides the market process and also the hearts of the kings who moderate its worst consequences.

That's the first time I've heard Keynes invisible hand referred to as God!

Er, wait. Was that Keynes? Blech, I told you economics is not my thing! But I see where you're coming from.

I see the necessity for free market economies for exqactly the reasons you point out. It is helpfull to have a playing field out there that allows people to rise in fileds where they have ability, rather than everything being locked into a governmental system. However, I see governmental regulation as having a role in undoing the natural tendency for wealth to pool uselessly in the hands of a few, whether or not they are actually doing anything productive with it.

I see that as moral because of the scriptures involving the Jubilee. I do not see it however as a moral imperative. My understanding has been for some time that this world is never going to be perfect anyhow. Far from it. But still, I don't think it hurts to talk about ideals.

 

[BobbieDog]

That's the first time I've heard Keynes invisible hand referred to as God! .. ... .. I see the necessity for free market economies for exqactly the reasons you point out. It is helpfull to have a playing field out there that allows people to rise in fileds where they have ability, rather than everything being locked into a governmental system. However, I see governmental regulation as having a role in undoing the natural tendency for wealth to pool uselessly in the hands of a few, whether or not they are actually doing anything productive with it.

So, looking at free market and regulation, both under God
I wonder whether there is a tendency for orthodoxy to take especially strong form in religions: where the regulatory aspect of your brief is thereby met; and where we would have to wonder how the free market aspect would emerge, and how it would then be recieved.
So is Jesus some free market emergence from Judaism.
Again we could contrast Christianity and Islam: where the Sufi's might represent a free market aspect, of an otherwise somewhat ethnically centralised religion.
Again, even within the orthodoxies of each, and similarly with the Judaic: it could be considered as to what degree of free market enterprise was negotiated within the regulation; where, for example, Jewish bankers achieved a monetary prosperity which saw them financing secular kingdoms.
Again there is trading within the ethnic collective: and trading outwith the collective.
The God basis of ecenomics can be profound: where it can even be argued that Islam prsents the USA with a fresh simalcrum of the communism it has always opposed.

 

[mindlight]

That's the first time I've heard Keynes invisible hand referred to as God!

Er, wait. Was that Keynes? Blech, I told you economics is not my thing! But I see where you're coming from.

I see the necessity for free market economies for exqactly the reasons you point out. It is helpfull to have a playing field out there that allows people to rise in fileds where they have ability, rather than everything being locked into a governmental system. However, I see governmental regulation as having a role in undoing the natural tendency for wealth to pool uselessly in the hands of a few, whether or not they are actually doing anything productive with it.

I see that as moral because of the scriptures involving the Jubilee. I do not see it however as a moral imperative. My understanding has been for some time that this world is never going to be perfect anyhow. Far from it. But still, I don't think it hurts to talk about ideals.

Adam Smith is the guy you are thinking of. The notion of a market is a powerful one but in the end I suppose it is only a model of understanding for actual economic relationships. God is Sovereign so in markets as in cultures, governments and in life he is the invisible hand that brings all things towards their conclusion.

I like the concept of Jubilee. My own government have taken it to mean debt forgiveness for third world countries who are starting to move in the right direction with responsible governments. This allows poor nations to help themselves as the consequences of their past mistakes are lifted from them.

As for the useless rich - I take the good with the bad. Some are useless and some are the very glue that holds our modern world order together. In a few generations I think the useless ones lose their wealth and the productive ones grow in it. The point is to allow that process to occur. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the state however seems to me to concentrate its distribution more at the useless and incomptent end of utilisation than at the productive end.

Of course life is more than money and to live a life beyond necessity is the dream of many of us. I would like to think that my children could grow up thinking about a little more than just about how to pay bills and that their life choices could be all the freer for that.