Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberals and uncharitableness

2015-10-26T19:12:57Z

Ebionite:

[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.<ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]</ref>]]

[[Liberal]]s are uncharitable relative to [[conservative]]s, which, if the studies supporting this position are accurate, doesn't actually mean that liberals are uncharitable, but since Conservapedia has an agenda to demonize liberals as heretics, the article has been titled such as to promote this type of propaganda. It's highly likely that the data is not complete, and conservatives and liberals are probably about equally charitable. Nonetheless, if conservative charitable donations go even $0.10 over liberal charitable donations, expect to see this page up. If, however, liberals out-donate conservatives, this page will be deleted without a trace, and there will be no mention.

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

*Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

*Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.htm]l</ref>}}

[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]]) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152]</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]], atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]</ref> These figures do not, however, take into account volunteer work that may be done by these same people. Many argue that the actual volunteer work has equal or greater value to monetary donations.

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1]</ref>

[[Barack Obama]] has also been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his (un)charitable giving]].

==See also==
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Liberal politicians and uncharitableness]]
*[[Atheism and uncharitableness]]
*[[Social Darwinism]]
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
== External Links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Charity]]

Talk:Essay: Pat Tillman was DEFINITELY not an atheist

2015-10-26T19:03:07Z

Ebionite:

If an atheist sometimes wonders whether the gods exist (while calling yourself an atheist) makes you "DEFINITELY not an atheist" (not a 'true' atheist), then...

Does sometimes doubting whether your version of god exists (while calling yourself a christian) make you "DEFINITELY not a christian" (not a 'true' christian)?

Almost all christians admit that they occasionally doubt whether or not their god exists. "Sometimes contemplating" the possibility of the other side being correct does not negate your own perspective, or make you untrue to what you believe (whether for, or against). That would be a ridiculous notion, as it would effectively means that all humans are actually agnostics. An intelligent person can see things from the other perspective - it would seem that Pat Tillman was an intelligent atheist. He had his own beliefs, he identified his own beliefs and threw a label on it, and this article is a dishonor to Tillman's memory.

'''Tillman's brother, who would know him better than anyone at Conservapedia would:'''

In response to his eulogy, Pat's brother stated, "Just make no mistake, he'd want me to say this: He's not with God, he's f*cking dead—he's not religious. Thanks for your thoughts, but he's f*cking dead."

Like myself, Pat had read and studied multiple religious books. He had good reason for being an atheist - he had read and studied the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon, at least. It sounds like he was very much like me, so if I'm right, he had probably read several others, as well - just as in my case, the family probably didn't know the extent to the religious studies he had actually done. An intelligent ATHEIST like Pat Tillman was probably very interested in learning and understanding.

I don't know if anyone here is a veteran, but something you guys should know about military culture is that you DON'T disrespect the fallen (like you've done here). Sure, I'm an atheist, and no, I can't explain fully why I hold this view (perhaps it's just irrational human emotions-something all humans share), but quite frankly, you people are disgusting.

'''''Figured it out. You're trolling, using a dead man's memory.'''''

You guys "get off" to the idea of disrespecting fallen atheists, and disrespecting those who have earned a "hero" status in our community. While the lot of you are gangbanging Andrew Schlafly, you guys read comments from atheists you've ticked off - it helps you orgasm. Schlafly's face must be covered by now. [[User:Ebionite|Ebionite]] ([[User talk:Ebionite|talk]]) 14:45, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Pat Tillman was DEFINITELY not an atheist

2015-10-26T18:59:09Z

Ebionite:

If an atheist sometimes wonders whether the gods exist (while calling yourself an atheist) makes you "DEFINITELY not an atheist" (not a 'true' atheist), then...

Does sometimes doubting whether your version of god exists (while calling yourself a christian) make you "DEFINITELY not a christian" (not a 'true' christian)?

Almost all christians admit that they occasionally doubt whether or not their god exists. "Sometimes contemplating" the possibility of the other side being correct does not negate your own perspective, or make you untrue to what you believe (whether for, or against). That would be a ridiculous notion, as it would effectively means that all humans are actually agnostics. An intelligent person can see things from the other perspective - it would seem that Pat Tillman was an intelligent atheist. He had his own beliefs, he identified his own beliefs and threw a label on it, and this article is a dishonor to Tillman's memory.

'''Tillman's brother, who would know him better than anyone at Conservapedia would:'''

In response to his eulogy, Pat's brother stated, "Just make no mistake, he'd want me to say this: He's not with God, he's f*cking dead—he's not religious. Thanks for your thoughts, but he's f*cking dead."

Like myself, Pat had read and studied multiple religious books. He had good reason for being an atheist - he had read and studied the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon, at least. It sounds like he was very much like me, so if I'm right, he had probably read several others, as well - just as in my case, the family probably didn't know the extent to the religious studies he had actually done. An intelligent ATHEIST like Pat Tillman was probably very interested in learning and understanding.

I don't know if anyone here is a veteran, but something you guys should know about military culture is that you DON'T disrespect the fallen (like you've done here). Sure, I'm an atheist, and no, I can't explain fully why I hold this view (perhaps it's just irrational human emotions-something all humans share), but quite frankly, you people are disgusting. [[User:Ebionite|Ebionite]] ([[User talk:Ebionite|talk]]) 14:45, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Pat Tillman was DEFINITELY not an atheist

2015-10-26T18:45:48Z

Ebionite:

Talk:Essay: Pat Tillman was DEFINITELY not an atheist

2015-10-26T18:45:06Z

Ebionite: Created page with "If an atheist sometimes wonders whether the gods exist, while calling yourself an atheist, makes you "DEFINITELY not an atheist" (not a 'true' atheist), then... Does sometime..."

If an atheist sometimes wonders whether the gods exist, while calling yourself an atheist, makes you "DEFINITELY not an atheist" (not a 'true' atheist), then...

Does sometimes doubting whether your version of god exists, while calling yourself a christian, make you "DEFINITELY not a christian" (not a 'true' christian)?

Almost all christians admit that they occasionally doubt whether or not their god exists. "Sometimes contemplating" the possibility of the other side being correct does not negate your own perspective, or make you untrue to what you believe (whether for, or against). That would be a ridiculous notion, as it would effectively means that all humans are actually agnostics. An intelligent person can see things from the other perspective - it would seem that Pat Tillman was an intelligent atheist. He had his own beliefs, he identified his own beliefs and threw a label on it, and this article is a dishonor to Tillman's memory. [[User:Ebionite|Ebionite]] ([[User talk:Ebionite|talk]]) 14:45, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Essay:Pat Tillman was not an atheist

2015-10-26T18:37:37Z

Ebionite:

{{essay}}

The haters of America have found their poster child, Pat Tillman. Gary Smith did an extensive work writing about the Tillman few of us knew, titled Remember His Name. <ref>[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/05/tillman0911/ Remember His Name]Sports Illustrated</ref> The work is comprised of glorifying the hero he was and publishing little known so-called facts like; Pat was a Bush hater, Pat was a leftist, Pat was an [[atheism|atheist]]. Of course, he can't defend himself after dying on the battlefield. Gary Smith got much of the story from a greiving family who went through hell trying to find the truth to their sons death. At the time this story was published, the liberal mainstream media were having a field day tearing down the commander-in-chief, during wartime. The story made perfect sense, Tillman died for nothing, Bush's war was unjust (even though 111 Democrats voted for the war.) Liberals were estatic, Pat wouldn't be used as a model for recruitment or as an American patriot, he would be used as an anti-war hero, leftist propaganda.

As I read 'Remember His Name', I couldn't help but think that Gary Smith made a hit piece. As I read other sites reviews, liberals everywhere were congratulating Smith for his work. Leftist blogs everywhere were giving kudos to Smith, creating conspiracy theories, even leftwing hate websites like DailyKos were giving their approval. Nobody was saying his writing stunk, nobody was saying this isn't true, except Ann Coulter. <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin Pat Tillman, Our Hero] The Nation, October 6, 2005</ref> Here is a sample of Smith's writing about Tillman "Gays, for instance. By the last few years of his life, his narrow view of them as an adolescent had so altered that he would argue they were the most evolved form of man." Smith pushing leftwing agenda, Smith pushing evolution, 'most evolved form of man'? Smith did a good job alright, the making of a leftist hero, a Bush-hater, one of them.

As a teen, Pat kept a journal. The writings in it would be a trophy for atheism. "I consider myself an atheist, however, in the back of my mind, I wonder if there is something greater." At age sixteen, most people don't know enough about life to make a profound decision such as that, a young mind still growing. If you look where he was at the time and how he ended up, it is a certainty that he was never an atheist. At age 17, he was arrested for assault and spent 30 days in jail. There is no doubt, his life would change for the better. He left behind all that was wrong (atheism) and he strove to be the best at whatever he did. He became a college football sensation. Tillman was a team player, he had moxy, he had determination to be the best. At his funeral, Chad Schwartz paid Pat homage "morals that could not be compromised,” and "he wanted to be an inspiration. He wanted to change people and he wanted to change his country for the better.” Does that sound like an atheist to you? Pat was an avid reader 'the man with an insatiable zeal for debate and an ongoing thirst for knowledge, the man who read everything from the Bible to the Koran and Emerson to Thoreau', even the Book of Mormons. But the hit piece article focused on Noam Chomsky, 'Pat just loved Noam, was prepared to meet him after the service.' Even though it was confirmed by Noam, I seriously doubt it. This all fits nicely into the leftist soldier who wrongly died for his country. It is true that he was not married in a Church, only an atheist would use that to their advantage. All the talk that Pat said the 'Iraq war was illegal', is hard to believe he truly felt that way. You've heard the old saying 'There are no atheists in foxholes', I believe that and I believe that Pat had issues under the stress of war.

Then there is the issue of Pat's football career. He had already served in war and could be let out of the Army early, the NFL wanted him back. Smith's article goes on to say how he seriously considered this. I don't believe this either. Here is a man loyal to his country, to his fellow soldiers, out of personal hate of the war, Smith argued Pat thought seriously about abandoning them. Include in this fact that Pat signed up for military service with his brother. He would leave his brother behind? Pat had married right before he volunteered. His wife spoke of a man that did not have an ego. Pat had accumulated award after award, trophy after trophy playing college ball. His wife would say the only thing on Pat's mantle was a hand drawn U.S. flag. This is somebody who would turn against his country? How many atheist do you know would sacrifice their life for their country? For others? Selfless is not an atheist quality.

Everybody that paid Pat homage spoke of an incredible man, his courage, his bravery. Pat's brother-in-law would say, "take great notice of his daily pursuit to become a better person. But more importantly, his utter pride, devotion, and love for Marie, his family, and his friends.” Show me another atheist with the same convictions. '''Ok. Please direct your attention to [http://militaryatheists.org/ atheists in the United States Military], who serve to protect you (and all others) who degrade them for being atheists. Done.''' ''(I only responded because you said, "Show me." I would have said, "Hi, that's me," as an atheist veteran, but there are more atheist servicemen and servicewomen, than just myself. Check them out, their convictions for others are as strong as my own.)'' [[User:Ebionite|Ebionite]] ([[User talk:Ebionite|talk]]) 12:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Former Arizona Cardinal teammate Zack Walz spoke of Pat's dog tags that he received, "For as long as gravity pulls, they will hang down close to my heart—the place where Pat Tillman has permanently emblazoned his mark.” Can we say that Pat cared deeply for his fellow man? Pat left a mark on people, for the better.

Smith would write 'But it was his character and his convictions that added countless inches to his unassuming stature.' Atheism has but one conviction, the daily fight to remove God from their own lives and others' lives. That is not the Pat Tillman America produced. He is a hero, not a leftwing zero.

== See also ==

*[[Essay: Pat Tillman was DEFINITELY not an atheist|Conservapedia still uses a false definition of Atheism, and we want to prove our ignorance to you]]

=== References ===
<references/>

User talk:Ebionite

2015-10-26T16:29:01Z

Ebionite: Created page with "."

Essay:Pat Tillman was not an atheist

2015-10-26T16:26:09Z

Ebionite:

Essay:Pat Tillman was not an atheist

2015-10-26T16:24:08Z

Ebionite:

{{essay}}

The haters of America have found their poster child, Pat Tillman. Gary Smith did an extensive work writing about the Tillman few of us knew, titled Remember His Name. <ref>[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/05/tillman0911/ Remember His Name]Sports Illustrated</ref> The work is comprised of glorifying the hero he was and publishing little known so-called facts like; Pat was a Bush hater, Pat was a leftist, Pat was an [[atheism|atheist]]. Of course, he can't defend himself after dying on the battlefield. Gary Smith got much of the story from a greiving family who went through hell trying to find the truth to their sons death. At the time this story was published, the liberal mainstream media were having a field day tearing down the commander-in-chief, during wartime. The story made perfect sense, Tillman died for nothing, Bush's war was unjust (even though 111 Democrats voted for the war.) Liberals were estatic, Pat wouldn't be used as a model for recruitment or as an American patriot, he would be used as an anti-war hero, leftist propaganda.

As I read 'Remember His Name', I couldn't help but think that Gary Smith made a hit piece. As I read other sites reviews, liberals everywhere were congratulating Smith for his work. Leftist blogs everywhere were giving kudos to Smith, creating conspiracy theories, even leftwing hate websites like DailyKos were giving their approval. Nobody was saying his writing stunk, nobody was saying this isn't true, except Ann Coulter. <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin Pat Tillman, Our Hero] The Nation, October 6, 2005</ref> Here is a sample of Smith's writing about Tillman "Gays, for instance. By the last few years of his life, his narrow view of them as an adolescent had so altered that he would argue they were the most evolved form of man." Smith pushing leftwing agenda, Smith pushing evolution, 'most evolved form of man'? Smith did a good job alright, the making of a leftist hero, a Bush-hater, one of them.

As a teen, Pat kept a journal. The writings in it would be a trophy for atheism. "I consider myself an atheist, however, in the back of my mind, I wonder if there is something greater." At age sixteen, most people don't know enough about life to make a profound decision such as that, a young mind still growing. If you look where he was at the time and how he ended up, it is a certainty that he was never an atheist. At age 17, he was arrested for assault and spent 30 days in jail. There is no doubt, his life would change for the better. He left behind all that was wrong (atheism) and he strove to be the best at whatever he did. He became a college football sensation. Tillman was a team player, he had moxy, he had determination to be the best. At his funeral, Chad Schwartz paid Pat homage "morals that could not be compromised,” and "he wanted to be an inspiration. He wanted to change people and he wanted to change his country for the better.” Does that sound like an atheist to you? Pat was an avid reader 'the man with an insatiable zeal for debate and an ongoing thirst for knowledge, the man who read everything from the Bible to the Koran and Emerson to Thoreau', even the Book of Mormons. But the hit piece article focused on Noam Chomsky, 'Pat just loved Noam, was prepared to meet him after the service.' Even though it was confirmed by Noam, I seriously doubt it. This all fits nicely into the leftist soldier who wrongly died for his country. It is true that he was not married in a Church, only an atheist would use that to their advantage. All the talk that Pat said the 'Iraq war was illegal', is hard to believe he truly felt that way. You've heard the old saying 'There are no atheists in foxholes', I believe that and I believe that Pat had issues under the stress of war.

Then there is the issue of Pat's football career. He had already served in war and could be let out of the Army early, the NFL wanted him back. Smith's article goes on to say how he seriously considered this. I don't believe this either. Here is a man loyal to his country, to his fellow soldiers, out of personal hate of the war, Smith argued Pat thought seriously about abandoning them. Include in this fact that Pat signed up for military service with his brother. He would leave his brother behind? Pat had married right before he volunteered. His wife spoke of a man that did not have an ego. Pat had accumulated award after award, trophy after trophy playing college ball. His wife would say the only thing on Pat's mantle was a hand drawn U.S. flag. This is somebody who would turn against his country? How many atheist do you know would sacrifice their life for their country? For others? Selfless is not an atheist quality.

Everybody that paid Pat homage spoke of an incredible man, his courage, his bravery. Pat's brother-in-law would say, "take great notice of his daily pursuit to become a better person. But more importantly, his utter pride, devotion, and love for Marie, his family, and his friends.” Show me another atheist with the same convictions. '''Ok. Please direct your attention to [http://militaryatheists.org/ atheists in the United States Military], who serve to protect you (and all others) who degrade them for being atheists. Done.''' ''(I only responded because you said, "Show me.")'' [[User:Ebionite|Ebionite]] ([[User talk:Ebionite|talk]]) 12:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Former Arizona Cardinal teammate Zack Walz spoke of Pat's dog tags that he received, "For as long as gravity pulls, they will hang down close to my heart—the place where Pat Tillman has permanently emblazoned his mark.” Can we say that Pat cared deeply for his fellow man? Pat left a mark on people, for the better.

Smith would write 'But it was his character and his convictions that added countless inches to his unassuming stature.' Atheism has but one conviction, the daily fight to remove God from their own lives and others' lives. That is not the Pat Tillman America produced. He is a hero, not a leftwing zero.

=== References ===
<references/>

Capitalism

2015-10-26T16:20:02Z

Ebionite:

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''' is a [[free market]] economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in [[socialism]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

==Overview==
One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,
{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|400px|thumbnail|The [[free enterprise]] system in [[United States of America|America]] before [[liberals]], [[Republican in name only|rinos]], and/or members of the [[progressive movement]], such as President [[Barack Obama]], eroded America's [[economics|economic]] freedom and prosperity. Recently, President [[Obamunism|Barack Obama]] created [[National debt of the United States|massive Federal government debt.]] ]]
{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, <sup>2</sup><ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,
{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;
{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.
{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

==Conflict with true Christianity==
Capitalism is diametrically opposed to the principles, teachings, and life of [[Jesus Christ]]. This position is supported by the words of Jesus, himself, as well as historical evidence describing the earliest Christians.
{{cquote|The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. - [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/mat019.htm Matthew 19:20-22]}}
Being "rich" 2,000 years ago was nothing close to being middle-class or low-income, today. Compared to Biblical times, almost all Americans are exceedingly rich, yet almost no American Christians, today, follow Jesus' instruction.
{{cquote|But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/luk006.htm Luke 6:24-26]}}
When Jesus says, "Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger," (v. 25), it's not just a matter of stomachs being full, but a matter of those who find fulfillment in their earthly riches. Capitalism satisfies that very desire.

On some of the early Christians, [[Origen]] writes of the [[Ebionites]] ''(Ebionai)'',
{{cquote|Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and ''those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites''.<ref name=origen-book2-chapter1>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.ii.i.html|title=Writings of Origen: Book 2, Chapter 1}}</ref>}}
While [[Origen]] may have been writing of the early denomination, early Christian practices make it apparent that the concept of making a [[profit]] could not be consolidated with, and had nothing to do with, true Christianity.

==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom and an increase in the standard of living and human rights, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power for himself, becoming a dictator.

Capitalist societies also generally have higher standards of living compared to their non-capitalist counterparts in terms of per capita GDP, education, healthcare, and poverty rates. [[China]], for instance, has been growing extremely prosperous since it began opening its economy to capitalism in the 1980s.

However, capitalist societies also have seen progressively larger gaps between the upper and middle classes develop, such as the United States where the top twenty percent owned eighty-seven percent of the financial wealth and eighty percent of the total wealth, despite having the largest GDP in the world.

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

--[[Milton Friedman]], Free to Choose

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from ''Man vs. the Welfare State''.

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism."

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

-- Albert Jay Nock, Our enemy, the State

"Businessmen are the symbol of a free society — the symbol of America."

-- Ayn Rand

== See also ==
* [[Austrian economics]]
* [[Capital]]
* [[Free Enterprise]]
* [[Ludwig von Mises]]
* [[Enterprise]]
* [[Planned economy]]
* [[Socialism]]
* [[Welfare state]] turns to [[Nanny state]] turns to [[Police state]]
* [[Benefits of capitalism]]
* [[Vulture capitalist]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Capitalism|!]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]

Capitalism

2015-10-26T16:18:47Z

Ebionite:

[[Image:Tokyo Stock Exchange.jpg|thumb|Tokyo Stock Exchange]]
'''Capitalism''' is a [[free market]] economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in [[socialism]]) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see [[law of supply and demand]]).

==Overview==
One self-regulating feature of capitalism is competition, which helps maintain fair market value for goods and services. However, ''unrestrained'' or ''pure'' capitalism may sometimes create a positive feedback loop in which a small number of individual accumulations of capital grow ever larger, eventually becoming so few as to limit effective competition, thus ceasing to strictly be free-market capitalism. In this regard, pure capitalism is unstable. Modern political systems have developed regulation mechanisms in an attempt to render capitalism more stable, including anti-trust regulation, trade tariffs, etc.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly widespread.

[[Adam Smith]] described the operation of capital accumulation through the productive powers of labor as such,
{{Cquote|Whatever a person saves from his [[revenue]] he adds to his [[capital]], and either employs it himself in maintaining an additional number of productive hands, or enables some other person to do so, by lending it to him for an interest, that is, for a share of the profits. As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 15,] ''Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of Productive and Unproductive Labour'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Smith goes on to describe how the productive powers of labor employed by the owner of a capital allow laborers to reproduce with a profit the value of their maintenance, over and above their own consumption, which then allows for an additional set of hands to be employed. <ref>Adam Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', Book II, Chapter 3, Paragraph 22.</ref> Smith observes labor is the original purchase price for all the wealth of the world,
[[Image:Eco Pillars.jpg|right|400px|thumbnail|The [[free enterprise]] system in [[United States of America|America]] before [[liberals]], [[Republican in name only|rinos]], and/or members of the [[progressive movement]], such as President [[Barack Obama]], eroded America's [[economics|economic]] freedom and prosperity. Recently, President [[Obamunism|Barack Obama]] created [[National debt of the United States|massive Federal government debt.]] ]]
{{Cquote|The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, <sup>2</sup><ref>'Everything in the world is purchased by labour.'—Hume, 'Of Commerce,' in Political Discourses, 1752, p. 12</ref> as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html Book I, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2,] ''Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Real wealth consists not in money, but in the things money will exchange for,
{{Cquote|In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompense for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 37,] ''Of Money Considered as a particular Branch of the General Stock of the Society, or of the Expence of Maintaining the National Capital '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

Since wealth does not consist in money, gold, or silver, and labor is the original purchase price, Smith explains how the capitalist system is then put into motion, complete with natural incentives, only Smith does not use the word "capital" here to describe what is needed. Smith explains how a "store of goods", or "stock sufficient to maintain" the original capitalist entrepreneur is necessary;
{{Cquote|When the stock which a man possesses is no more than sufficient to maintain him for a few days or a few weeks, he seldom thinks of deriving any revenue from it. He consumes it as sparingly as he can, and endeavours by his labour to acquire something which may supply its place before it be consumed altogether. His revenue is, in this case, derived from his labour only. This is the state of the greater part of the labouring poor in all countries.

But when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavours to derive a revenue from the greater part of it; reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. The other is that which supplies his immediate consumption <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2,] ''Of the Division of Stock '', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

The [[division of labor]] is the necessary condition that gives rise to the productive powers of labor that allows for large scale economic growth. By "division of labor", Smith is referring to "specialization of labor", where each worker acquires specific knowledge to apply to a specific task.
{{Cquote|In that rude state of society in which there is no division of labour, in which exchanges are seldom made, and in which every man provides everything for himself, it is not necessary that any stock should be accumulated or stored up beforehand in order to carry on the business of the society. Every man endeavours to supply by his own industry his own occasional wants as they occur. When he is hungry, he goes to the forest to hunt; when his coat is worn out, he clothes himself with the skin of the first large animal he kills: and when his hut begins to go to ruin, he repairs it, as well as he can, with the trees and the turf that are nearest it.

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labour has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.

As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, ...in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book II, Introduction, Paragraphs 1, 2, & 3] ''Of the Nature, Accumulation, and Employment of Stock,'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. <ref>Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'', [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN7.html Book I, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1] ''Of the Origin and Use of Money'', First Edition 1776.</ref>}}

==Conflict with true Christianity==
Capitalism is diametrically opposed to the principles, teachings, and life of [[Jesus Christ]]. This position is supported by the words of Jesus, himself, as well as historical evidence describing the earliest Christians.
{{cquote|The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. - [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/mat019.htm Matthew 19:20-22]}}
Being "rich" 2,000 years ago was nothing close to being middle-class or low-income, today. Compared to Biblical times, almost all Americans are exceedingly rich, yet almost no American Christians, today, follow Jesus' instruction.
{{cquote|But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/luk006.htm Luke 6:24-26]}}
When Jesus says, "Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger," (v. 25), it's not just a matter of stomachs being full, but a matter of those who find fulfillment in their earthly riches. Capitalism satisfies that very desire.

On some of the early Christians, [[Origen]] writes of the [[Ebionites]] ''(Ebionai)'',
{{cquote|Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and ''those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites''.<ref name=origen-book2-chapter1>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.ii.i.html|title=Writings of Origen: Book 2, Chapter 1}}</ref>}}
While [[Origen]] may have been writing of the early denomination, early Christian practices make it apparent that the concept of making a [[profit]] had could not be consolidated with, and had nothing to do with, true Christianity.

==Capitalism and Society==
[[Image:Ludwig von Mises.jpg|thumb|100px|Ludwig von Mises]]
Historically, capitalism has fostered freedom and an increase in the standard of living and human rights, and vice versa. Societies that have tried non-capitalist systems inevitably fall into tyranny.

For example, [[Venezuela]], while not a perfect country before [[Hugo Chavez]], had freedom and wealth unprecedented in its history. As Chavez has nationalized industries, he has also centralized power for himself, becoming a dictator.

Capitalist societies also generally have higher standards of living compared to their non-capitalist counterparts in terms of per capita GDP, education, healthcare, and poverty rates. [[China]], for instance, has been growing extremely prosperous since it began opening its economy to capitalism in the 1980s.

However, capitalist societies also have seen progressively larger gaps between the upper and middle classes develop, such as the United States where the top twenty percent owned eighty-seven percent of the financial wealth and eighty percent of the total wealth, despite having the largest GDP in the world.

== Quotes ==

“Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.”

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--[[Milton Friedman]], Capitalism and Freedom, 1962.

"If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."

--[[Milton Friedman]], Free to Choose

“Capitalism is essentially the economic system of poor people. That’s what allowed the people that came from humble origins of the world to have economic rights the way only nobility and the high bourgeoisie had it before. So capitalism is essentially a tool for poor people to prosper.”

--Hernando de Soto, PBS Interview, March 30-31, 2001

(cf: [http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=026a3bda-755c-45d8-84d3-c68eef294612 Values - Free Enterprise])

"The only real cure for poverty is production". [[Henry Hazlitt]], from ''Man vs. the Welfare State''.

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism."

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

-- Albert Jay Nock, Our enemy, the State

"Businessmen are the symbol of a free society — the symbol of America."

-- Ayn Rand

== See also ==
* [[Austrian economics]]
* [[Capital]]
* [[Free Enterprise]]
* [[Ludwig von Mises]]
* [[Enterprise]]
* [[Planned economy]]
* [[Socialism]]
* [[Welfare state]] turns to [[Nanny state]] turns to [[Police state]]
* [[Benefits of capitalism]]
* [[Vulture capitalist]]

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/capitalism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Capitalism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Capitalism|!]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]