Egoism or Communism: Christians Must Choose

[TheChristianEgoist]

This is a post from my blog for Christians who are pro-Capitalism, but don't understand the necessity of rejecting Altruism in order to be consistent.

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... st-choose/

Egoism of Communism: Christians Must Choose

Internal War

There is a very good upsurge of ‘Liberty-minded’ thinking going on today – particularly in traditionally ‘Christian conservative’ circles. But even with power-house movements like the Tea Party, the liberty-leaning masses haven’t been able to catch significant footing in the culture. Why? Because the majority of them (the ‘Moral Majority’ …aka Christians) are at war with themselves ideologically. Consider the following quote very carefully, and ask yourself if you do not already see this playing out:

“Since both parties (Democrat and Republican) hold altruism as their basic moral principle, both advocate a welfare state or mixed economy as their ultimate goal … It is precisely [the altruism-collectivism-statism] ends that ought to be rejected. But if neither party chooses to do it, the logic of the events created by their common basic principles will keep dragging them both further and further to the left. If and when the “conservatives� are kicked out of the game altogether, the same conflict will continue between the “liberals� and the avowed “socialists�; when the socialists win, the conflict will continue between the socialists and the communists; when the communists win, the ultimate goal of altruism will be achieved: universal immolation. There is no way to stop or change that process except at the root: by a change of basic principles.“ -Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal p.146, emphasis added.

Addressing the Root

Christians can talk all the game they want about Capitalism, Free-Markets, the Rule of Law, and Liberty, but as long as they’ve got altruism as their root — as their basic moral principle, they will inevitably be advocating for Communism, Collectivism, and Statism – no matter how loudly they may protest otherwise. Christians, more than anyone, should understand the importance of the root — of basic moral principles (see all of Jesus’ references to trees and plants and leaven). Principles have trajectories. And trajectories cannot be changed mid-air — they must be changed at the root.

The Ends of Altruism

Altruism — the moral ideal of sacrificing one’s own values for the sake of the other — can only ever lead to Communism and Collectivism, if followed consistently. Incidentally, that is all the liberals are doing: they are consistently following the inept moral advice Christians have promoted in their unthinking and anti-intellectual slumber through Modernity. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and Christians are getting a frightening (and long overdue!) wake-up call with the spectacle of rampant wealth-transfer, social planning, and economic regulation. What did you expect? You condemn self-interest and personal profit as evil, insisting that everyone should ‘deny himself’ in every way possible, considering the good of ‘others’ as paramount — and then when the masses take you seriously and begin to enact your advice on a cultural and political level, you stare in astonishment that they actually took you seriously. Do not say that you only meant it individually — that you never expected your morality to be carried out on a political level. To think ‘individually’ is a sin (according to your altruistic morality) – we should not think of ourselves individually, but of everyone corporately; i.e. collectively. There is no escaping it. Altruism (other-ism) is the destruction of the individual for the sake of the collective; it is the destruction of profit for the sake of poverty; the destruction of freedom for the sake of chains; the destruction of man for the sake of ‘men’. Therefore, if Christians truly wish to oppose the evils of Communism and Collectivism (and the political corollary of Statism), they must renounce Altruism with swift and exhaustive repudiation.

The Only Alternative

It is not enough to simply dismiss Altruism, though. If it is not replaced with the proper moral root, that weed will grow back and continue its destruction. The only moral alternative to Altruism is Egoism — rational self interest. It is rational self interest which allows man to see himself as an individual – apart from the collectivist herd. It is rational self interest which allows him to have values – according to which he uses his faculties to shape the material of the world into valuable assets (i.e. ‘Capital’). It is rational self interest which drives man to value (and therefore to protect) his life, his freedom, and his property. This rational self interest – this egoism – is the only moral root for Capitalism, Individualism and Liberty. Apart from this root, there will be no genuine prosperity, but with it, the possibilities are endless.

Those are the alternatives laid before the American Christian:

Egoism with its social corollaries:

Capitalism, Individualism and Liberty

OR

Altruism with its social corollaries:

Communism, Collectivism and Statism.

One or the other. You cannot have both.

[/center]

[WinePusher]

What is with all the Christians supporting Ayn Rand and her philosophy? A better dichotomy than the one in the OP is the dichotomy between Christianity and objectivism. You can be a Christian, you can be an objectivist, you can be neither, but you can't be both.

I agree that that there are a lot of holes in objectivist philosophy, but objectivist ethics are still correct for the most part. From what we know, you have one life and you only live once. Therefore, it only makes to sense to live for yourself and not for other people. This is what Rand means when she says that selfishness is a virtue. You should live for yourself, you should not live for other people.

When you get paid at work, do you take your entire paycheck and give it away? Or, do you do the selfish thing and keep all the money for yourself and your family? The majority of people keep what they earn, and if they do give money to charity it is only a small fraction. This is by definition selfish. And it is justified because, according to Rand, you should take care of yourself and your family before you help strangers you don't even know.

Besides, Rand's philosophy makes perfect sense if you apply the old adage "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.' There's only so much 'altruism' can do. And when you think about it, is it really in somebody's self interest if you take care of them forever? Yes, if they're going through a rough time then obviously the right thing to do would be to help them. But, overtime they should become self sufficient and be able to take care of themselves.

[WinePusher]

Christians can talk all the game they want about Capitalism, Free-Markets, the Rule of Law, and Liberty, but as long as they’ve got altruism as their root — as their basic moral principle, they will inevitably be advocating for Communism, Collectivism, and Statism – no matter how loudly they may protest otherwise. Christians, more than anyone, should understand the importance of the root — of basic moral principles (see all of Jesus’ references to trees and plants and leaven). Principles have trajectories. And trajectories cannot be changed mid-air — they must be changed at the root.

I don't think you understand that there is a major difference between how society should be organized and the way individual people should behave. The Christian right wing as been very clear in their support for a socially conservative society structured around Capitalism, Free Markets and limited government. And the Christian right wing teaches for individuals to behave altruistically and communally.

People like you have it completely backwards. You want communist and egalitarian governments and institutions such as welfare, food stamps, etc which would force altruism and charitable behavior on the part of individuals to decline.

Besides, in a moral charitable transaction there should only be two individuals. The giver and the receiver. If you are hungry and I give you a sandwich, then you would obviously feel grateful and thankful and I, in turn, would feel good because I gave voluntarily. However, under your communist statist scheme, all charitable transactions are amoral because a third party (the government) is introduced into the equation. If you're hungry and the government comes in and confiscates my sandwich and gives it to you, you feel no sense of gratitude. Instead you feel entitled. I also feel no sense of joy, rather I have a sense of anger and hostility towards you because you essentially stole my sandwich from me.

So while altruism is a cherished virtue of Christianity, it is constantly being misapplied and misinterpreted by people like yourself.

[A Troubled Man]

Do you think all non-profits should be taxed, or just churches? The vast majority of churches have no 'profit' to tax.

"Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians. Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on this income, which led the leftist Rome weekly L'Espresso last week to call it "the biggest tax evader in Italy."

In 1962, Italy placed a 15% tax on all stock dividends, which two years later was raised to a 30% maximum. A rider to the original law that would have exempted the Vatican was specifically struck down. Nevertheless, the Vatican refused to pay the taxes"

http://www.nairaland.com/729658/vatican ... prosperity

I'm not a Catholic, but that proposed tax seems to violate previous treaties which took into consideration the taking of Vatican lands by Italy in 1870.

"The treaty also recognized the sovereignty of the Vatican, and a 1942 law written "in the spirit of the Concordat" exempted the Vatican from paying certain taxes then existing on dividends."

I'm not in favor of reneging on agreements.

But, you're okay with the church being the 'biggest tax evaders' especially when they are making profits with big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate?

[10CC]

The vast majority of Christians (note the capital) in fact embrace communism, that is probably because the founder of their religion taught it. There is a small number of christians (note the lower case) specifically concentrated in the USA (though pockets exist elsewhere) who proclaim the religion of wealth and power and define that as christianity in opposition to the teachings of the name of the religion they usurp.
600yrs ago the Christians may not have done everything right, but they did more right than anyone else.
Today the christians are the wall st stockbrokers, the ones who will in all godliness do everything possible to disenfranchise the less fortunate and make themselves wealthy (monetarily) beyond the excesses of any demonic despot who the world has ever had the misfortune to tenant.

[help3434]

[Replying to WinePusher]

You have what the ChristianEgoist is saying completely backwards. He is against Communism.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

You're dodging my question.

That you don't like my response is an issue I'll leave you to handle on your own.

I find your attempt to impugn my integrity as a "dodger" quite laughable, given how many times I've had to repeat challenges to some of your claims in the past.

[East of Eden]

From Post 17:

You're dodging my question.

That you don't like my response is an issue I'll leave you to handle on your own.

I find your attempt to impugn my integrity as a "dodger" quite laughable, given how many times I've had to repeat challenges to some of your claims in the past.

You mean the ones where I have to prove God's existence to your satisfaction every time I mention Him?

[East of Eden]

"Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetuated by disciples of altruism?"

Ayn Rand

How about the misery inflicted by fruit companies on banana republics? How about the The Bhopal disaster? How about slavery? How about modern day human trafficking?

What is with all the Christians supporting Ayn Rand and her philosophy? A better dichotomy than the one in the OP is the dichotomy between Christianity and objectivism. You can be a Christian, you can be an objectivist, you can be neither, but you can't be both.

I don't support Ayn Rand's atheism and many other views, but she was dead on in the quote I posted.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

You mean the ones where I have to prove God's existence to your satisfaction every time I mention Him?

And now we see the theist just hates to hafta show there's a God.

How might one "hafta" prove something they are entirely incapable of proving?

This is kinda the "unmentionable" aspect of this site - how we gotta play along with the theist - up to and including moderators getting onto me, and threatening me with sanctions, for merely asking folks to show their god exists.

I propose a critical, thorough analysis of any "god claim" is best handled in just a couple easy steps....

"God holds property x!"

I propose we must first consider the implied claim "God exists", and then, and only then, would it be proper to continue onto whether that god holds property x.

But I ain't even allowed to follow this simple process. I was forced, by the mods, to not challenge the existence of God as part of my analysis.

But don't it beat all, you can bet there'll be that theist that gets upset that when challenging a claim as to properties, is the implication, nay the fact the theist is incapable of showing he speaks truth.


So, East of Eden, you go right on ahead declaring I try to do that which only by moderator coercion I don't do.


Yet one more example of "Christian persecution complex".

[East of Eden]

From Post 27:

You mean the ones where I have to prove God's existence to your satisfaction every time I mention Him?

And now we see the theist just hates to hafta show there's a God.

How might one "hafta" prove something they are entirely incapable of proving?

This is kinda the "unmentionable" aspect of this site - how we gotta play along with the theist - up to and including moderators getting onto me,

Shouldn't that settle it, then? It's why I don't ask you to prove God doesn't exist, as you seem so sure of.

and threatening me with sanctions, for merely asking folks to show their god exists.

I propose a critical, thorough analysis of any "god claim" is best handled in just a couple easy steps....

"God holds property x!"

I propose we must first consider the implied claim "God exists", and then, and only then, would it be proper to continue onto whether that god holds property x.

But I ain't even allowed to follow this simple process. I was forced, by the mods, to not challenge the existence of God as part of my analysis.

But don't it beat all, you can bet there'll be that theist that gets upset that when challenging a claim as to properties, is the implication, nay the fact the theist is incapable of showing he speaks truth.


So, East of Eden, you go right on ahead declaring I try to do that which only by moderator coercion I don't do.


Yet one more example of "Christian persecution complex".

More like Christian annoyance complex. You seem to have written a pretty good immitation of atheist persecution complex above.