|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 22, 2015 5:40:06 GMT
Hi and welcome to my new post! I would like to talk about an interesting topic, the History of Christendom, and how we can restore it to it's former glory! First of all, we must take back at the History of Christendom: For me, Christendom begins with Christianity itself. The moment Jesus died on the Cross, the 12 Apostles formed the first example of "Christendom". They preached the Gospel to all of Creation, as the Bible requests Christians to do. After the tormentous 300 (283 years to be more precise) years of persecution by the Roman Empire, ended by The Emperor Constantine in his Edict of Milan, in 313AD, and the Adoption of Nicene Christianity by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I, suppressing the Olympic Religion (Greco-Roman Paganism). The fact that the Roman citizens left their wrong ways and false gods for Christianity makes me think that there is a God out there, that is in our side. The fall of Rome didn't directly affect the Papacy. In fact, we should be thankful the Barbarians converted to Christianity. A good example of Barbarian conversion is that, before the fall of Rome, the Frankish mythology included idols depicting golden bees, called cicadas, and it's roots in polytheistic Germanic mythology, but when the Merovingian Frankish king Clovis I married the Burgundian Christian Saint Clotilde, he converted to Christianity as well. Other reasons for his conversion to Christianity might be that it was the last Religion of the Roman Empire, and the Barbarians were fighting for the right over this Empire, even long after it had fallen. Charlemagne built his castles, cathedrals, cities, monasteries and palaces using architecture styles similar to those of the Byzantine Empire, Otto I, First Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, tried to get his son to marry a Byzantine princess. Ultimately, Otto failed, which was a disgrace. If the marriage of the Germanic prince with the Byzantine princess, the union between the Byzantine and the Holy Roman Empire would provide a powerful Christian empire. Same if the Franks and Anglo-Saxons allied the Sacro-Romans and Byzantines. However, it would be too good to be true And to make things worse, the most useless thing ever that happened in Christendom East-West Schism, that separated the Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church, took place in 1054. Why I say useless? "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 The Schism was based at first, in that the Catholic interpretation of the Holy Spirit was different to that of the Orthodox. A silly difference that makes absolutely no effect. There were also political differences. The Catholic Church is managed by a single Pope, the Orthodox Church is managed in Patriarchates. Silly difference too. We could put a Patriarchate system in the Western World as well and put all these Patriarchates under a single Pope, in my opinion. However, more substantial differences appeared. For example, in our Catholic Church, we have celibacy, which isn't compulsory in the Orthodox Church. I have already proven that I don't think Celibacy is a good idea, which is a norm implemented by the Papacy in the 11th Century, not inspired in the Bible, and therefore -in my opinion- shouldn't be put in the Catechism and Canon of the Catholic Church. But to avoid changing the topic of Christendom, I do believe that the differences between Catholics and Orthodoxes are pretty stupid. The Fourth Crusade shows us what can that do. Well, the thing is, as well as this division inside Christianity, the Islamic invasions took away lots of Christian lands from us. The land lost by the years before the First Crusade ranges from the Iberian Peninsula, Mauretania, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Egypt to Syria and the Levant. Important cities lost there are Cyrene, the city where Simon of Cyrene was born, Damascus, the City St. Paul had visited when he converted to Christianity, and the precious Jerusalem, where our Lord lived and died. The Crusades sought to recover these lost land from the sons of Yihad. The most successful was the First Crusade, that gave the Byzantines back the control of Anatolia, and restored Christian Crusader States in Outremer, securing the position of Christendom. By this time we have epic battles such as Didgori, Dorylaeum, the Siege of Antioch, and the Siege of Jerusalem. It's a shame that the Second Crusade failed, the Fourth Crusade was corrupted, and all the Crusades after that resulted in defeat. Despite that, personally, I justify the Crusades, and I do think Jesus Christ would have supported it. The video below shows most of my point: This video shows the rest of my point: It's true Christians are supposed to forgive. But Jesus gave us the right to self-defence and fight back. So FIGHT BACK! After the Crusades, we have increased development of Europe. More inventions appear, the Scientific method is invented by the Philosopher and Franciscan Friar, Roger Bacon. Universities, alchemy (early Chemistry, I love science ), the Blast furnace, which allowed more efficient production of steel, the Caravel, which could sail further than previous ships like the Galley. And the printing press, made by Johannes Gutenberg. Other inventions came from outside as well. Gunpowder, the Compass and the Astrolabe. Most of these inventions led to the discovery of the Americas, and the Spanish Empire becoming the pioneer of missions converting natives in the Americas. Other nations who did the same include the British and Portuguese Empire. However, these missions were more successful in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. The Ummah (Islamic version of Christendom, like Islamdom ) and India didn't give much conversions. In fact, Christians are still persecuted in those regions and we should do something about it. Sadly, the Spanish crown made some mistakes as well. They put high taxes, commercial restrictions and enslaved the racial minorities in the Americas. This led to the Latin American wars of Independence, because when Napoleon invaded Spain, the Latin Americans saw their chance to declare Independence. For example, Panama, my native country, became independent from Spain in November 28, 1821. Sadly Panama joined the Gran Colombia soon after, which, upon it's disintegration, left Panama as a Departamento of Colombia. Luckily, Panama separated from Colombia in November 3, 1903. (Panama has many patriotic days in November, that's why we call it "Mes de la Patria" or Homeland's Month) it is the shortest laboral month because it is full of days off. I need to make sure we do crazy stuff in Trebia during November so people don't have to get used to working on November hehehe... Anyways, speaking of 1821 and 1903, apart of being crucial years for my natal Panama, these years coincide with the period of time in which Christendom began to fall. The French Revolution had brought ideas of democracy. I do not really hate democracy. I don't see it as a perfect system because is not the government of the people, it is the government of the majority in society. However, some of the intentions of the French Revolution are good. In fact, the French people revolted because of the irresponsibility of the French Monarchy. They knew their people were starving and they did nothing about it. However, there were ideas in the French revolution that were out of place, such as Laïcité, the destruction of theocracy and separation of Church and State. The 99.9% of people believe that this is a good idea, but the spread of terrorism and chaos, Multiculturalism and it's consequences, Pride Parades, and celebration of homosexual immorality, the toleration and even promotion of Blaspemy (therefore abuse of the freedom of expression right as well), and many other examples. Secularization has destroyed Christendom, and there is irreparable damage, but even I understand we got some lessons from it. Before the French revolution Christians burned gays in the stake. Now that we are taken away from power we thought it better and now we understand that the correct thing to do is not to discriminate against them, but to show them the way, and simply don't accept homosexuality itself, but tolerate the gay person and (personally) ask them to be closeted. I think that the best way to actually destroy homosexuality is to make it every time less common by not presenting it to the general population. But going back to the topic, Christendom is dead, and most of us, and I am sure people outside our Order as well, envision this new Christendom, now that seems a challenge. Now that we finished the long story, let's get started on what we should do. Well, now that we read the epic story of Christendom, let's move on: For me, Christendom works as a coalition of nations. In antiquity the only nation that belonged to Christendom was the Roman Empire (there were other small nations, like Georgia and Armenia as well, that adopted Christendom). In the early Middle Ages, nations that belonged to Christendom were the Carolingian Empire, the Papal States and the Byzantine Empire. In the late Middle ages, new nations arose, such as the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of England, the Holy Roman Empire, the Italian Kingdoms of Lombardy and Naples, the Republic of Venice, the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Castille, the Kingdom of Aragón, the Polish Confederation, the Kingdom of Portugal, the Kievan Rus' and so on... So, Christendom is the land where Christianity is not only the majority faith, but State religion as well. They don't necessarily have to be theocracies, maybe, I'm not sure. Trebia is a theocracy, but I don't think that is necessary for a 21st Century Christendom. However, I told Sir Benedict about the Trebian theocracy and it is actually innovative. I need to share that information later. So, for me, the State that enters the coalition labeled Christendom: - Has Christianity as State religion or any branch of Christianity that we could have ecumenism with (no Westboro heretic scum)
- Has Law based on the Bible
- Is either a monarchy, or a republic
This are, in my opinion, basic requirements for an ambiguous Christendom. However, we should put more demands, for a better Christendom, these are ideas of mine, (make sure to comment your ideas, and I'll see if I can implement them in Trebia too):
- Promotes knowledge and scientific research, because science studies the Creation of God, and fosters development of Civilization, making us closer to God in some way
- Has a military, because quoting the book 'How to Start your Own Country' by Edwin Strauss, a secessionist state must be ready to defend it's own interests in a military way if necessary, and it may be necessary to provide armies if a Crusade starts
- Doesn't criminalize sin even if it is a theocracy, because we are all sinners, and therefore criminalizing sin isn't the solution to the problem
- Is Conservative and Traditionalist, because the precepts of Christianity are deeply tied with Tradition
These are my definitions for a State that fits in Christendom. Currently, there are no countries that fill in these 7 precepts. There are a few bunch of nations that fill in the first 3 precepts. The Vatican, Liechtenstein, Greece, Georgia and Malta are some examples.
Of course this lack of morality is unacceptable, and we must do something about it. Only a few people will hear us, and not that many countries would be affected by our ways. Maybe the rumors are true, and we are approaching the end of times. But the Lamb hasn't broken the first Seal yet, so we have the duty to do what we can, as Catholics, to restore the Glory of God here in Earth. Tell me your opinions and thank you for reading!
Some music to inspire you:
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 23, 2015 1:01:28 GMT
Wow, you certainly put a lot of thought and effort into this, Paulus! I'm inspired by your respect for the past and the way you're trying to resurrect all the good traditions that civilization has dropped in the last several centuries. Your list of 7 precepts for a Christian nation look good; I only have a couple of comments. First, I point out that the Vatican definitely fits your definition as a constituent of Christendom. It promotes science (Vatican Observatory), has a military (Swiss Guard), doesn't criminalize sin, and is probably the most traditionalist and conservative macronation around. My second comment may make it sound like I'm trying to stir up trouble, but I assure you I just want to share this idea with you. Google defines Christendom as "the worldwide body or society of Christians." With this definition, why do you limit membership in Christendom to states? As you pointed out, Christianity survived its first several hundred years without the protection of any state. Just like in the days of the early church, there could be modern christian communities that have societal norms based on Christian teaching and could protect themselves through voluntary militias of the faithful. I think these "christian anarchist" communities could be better (key word "could be") than the theocratic and semi-theocratic states you suggest because it would cut out the corruption and waste that even the best of states can't get rid of. It's a sad truth, but states (as we currently think of them) only survive because they coerce the dissenters into obedience. If you replace states with truly Christian communities, dissenters would be free to follow their own path (although you would try to evangelize them) and everyone who does not dissent would feel better knowing that they are following Christ because they want to, not because they are being forced to. This is just a theory, but as long as you're idealizing a model Christian world, you might as well idealize it as perfect
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 23, 2015 3:10:07 GMT
Wow, you certainly put a lot of thought and effort into this, Paulus! I'm inspired by your respect for the past and the way you're trying to resurrect all the good traditions that civilization has dropped in the last several centuries. Your list of 7 precepts for a Christian nation look good; I only have a couple of comments. First, I point out that the Vatican definitely fits your definition as a constituent of Christendom. It promotes science (Vatican Observatory), has a military (Swiss Guard), doesn't criminalize sin, and is probably the most traditionalist and conservative macronation around. My second comment may make it sound like I'm trying to stir up trouble, but I assure you I just want to share this idea with you. Google defines Christendom as "the worldwide body or society of Christians." With this definition, why do you limit membership in Christendom to states? As you pointed out, Christianity survived its first several hundred years without the protection of any state. Just like in the days of the early church, there could be modern christian communities that have societal norms based on Christian teaching and could protect themselves through voluntary militias of the faithful. I think these "christian anarchist" communities could be better (key word "could be") than the theocratic and semi-theocratic states you suggest because it would cut out the corruption and waste that even the best of states can't get rid of. It's a sad truth, but states (as we currently think of them) only survive because they coerce the dissenters into obedience. If you replace states with truly Christian communities, dissenters would be free to follow their own path (although you would try to evangelize them) and everyone who does not dissent would feel better knowing that they are following Christ because they want to, not because they are being forced to. This is just a theory, but as long as you're idealizing a model Christian world, you might as well idealize it as perfect Thank you Sir Benedict. Indeed, I've researched a lot in the last month (as well as translating the apologetics documents, doing homework, or relaxing from time to time). And I am putting my efforts indeed in restoring our ancient, stable and healthy traditions (unlike today's unstable world). Also, I believe civilization hasn't dropped traditions. Both civilization and tradition have been wasted by the society in preference of consumerism, and atheism. Regarding the 7 precepts, you are right, the Vatican fits on them all. The problem is, I think it's the only nation that does so. I have to check, possible candidates are Malta and Liechtenstein. Also, you don't really seem to stir up trouble with your second comment. It's very constructive! To stir up trouble with me, you would have to put a "Dawkinian" statement or comment. Named after the atheist hypocrite Richard Dawkins (who by the way, started most of the internet atheism mess that we have today), a Dawkinian post is a post that insult a formal and polite religious or moral statement in a rude and childish way. I just invented the term But going to the topic, I refer to the political concept of Christendom, which implies geopolitical power. We need this said geopolitical power before having a stable Christendom in the sense of the community of Christians. And, anarchism isn't really a good idea. To control crime, you need a police force, which is funded by a State. Anarchism basically limits us again to small tribes hunting for rabbits and deers. Any foreign force could prevent us from spreading the Gospel by neutering us if we limit ourselves to small clans. So I believe theocracies and semi-theocracies (nice term by the way ) are a good way to put a Christian civilization to work. Also, I've already stated before that despite I'm a little radical, I do tolerate religious minorities, as long as they don't cause trouble. For example, I considered issuing a ban on Islam because of too much coincidences. There you can read about a muslim threatening to blow up Christian churches. And you may say I am generalizing, but as I mentioned before, the Quran tells muslims that it's their duty to blow up our Churches and rape our kaffir (non-muslim) women, and no Western country is doing something about it today. On the other hand, Buddhists, for example, don't seem to cause that much trouble, so they are welcome in Trebia and would even be allowed to build temples (I actually respect Buddhism because it has so much precepts in common with Christianity). So there wouldn't be forced conversions at least in Trebia. I'd rather use persuasion, the promotion of Christianity via state propaganda. It's more effective than torture, and even in that case, I wouldn't press and bother the non-Christian population that much. So it's like the defense and promotion of Christianity, rather than the forced shoving of our religion, and the exclusive eradication of threats, nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 23, 2015 15:10:50 GMT
But going to the topic, I refer to the political concept of Christendom, which implies geopolitical power. We need this said geopolitical power before having a stable Christendom in the sense of the community of Christians. And, anarchism isn't really a good idea. To control crime, you need a police force, which is funded by a State. Anarchism basically limits us again to small tribes hunting for rabbits and deers. Any foreign force could prevent us from spreading the Gospel by neutering us if we limit ourselves to small clans. So I believe theocracies and semi-theocracies (nice term by the way ) are a good way to put a Christian civilization to work. Recently, I've been spending my time researching the thoughts and writings of Murray Rothbard, the 20th century economist and philosopher who was the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism. I'm not an anarchist (yet), but Rothbard's ideas are very interesting and are definitely worth a read. Let's look at things from an economic standpoint. Think about defense like a service that people demand. Most people don't want to live in a violent society; therefore, like all scarce goods, defense would have a market price. There would be firms (they could be for profit, non profit, cooperatives, or whatever) that provide these services. Some of these firms would be local and focus more on police matters. Others could be large corporations that provide defense for entire nations. The point is that if people want a service so much that they are willing to pay for it, then entrepreneurs will provide it. This is true on all scales, from large nations down to individuals. These communities need not be small. In fact, with increasing globalization and the internet, it is quite possible that such a Christian anarchist community could include all Christians around the world. If that's not Christendom, then I don't know what is. Also, I've already stated before that despite I'm a little radical, I do tolerate religious minorities, as long as they don't cause trouble. For example, I considered issuing a ban on Islam because of too much coincidences. There you can read about a muslim threatening to blow up Christian churches. And you may say I am generalizing, but as I mentioned before, the Quran tells muslims that it's their duty to blow up our Churches and rape our kaffir (non-muslim) women, and no Western country is doing something about it today. On the other hand, Buddhists, for example, don't seem to cause that much trouble, so they are welcome in Trebia and would even be allowed to build temples (I actually respect Buddhism because it has so much precepts in common with Christianity). So there wouldn't be forced conversions at least in Trebia. I'd rather use persuasion, the promotion of Christianity via state propaganda. It's more effective than torture, and even in that case, I wouldn't press and bother the non-Christian population that much. So it's like the defense and promotion of Christianity, rather than the forced shoving of our religion, and the exclusive eradication of threats, nothing else. It is indeed a noble aim to try to avoid shoving religion on people. However, it is the nature of all states to shove. It's all they know how to do. I'll give you an example. You brought up that you want to promote Christianity via state propaganda. How will such an undertaking be funded? Most likely by taxes. How are taxes collected? By the state demanding that they be paid. What happens when a citizen resists the state's demands for money? The state will seize their assets and throw them in jail. Following this chain of events, it is logical to conclude that the only way a state can promote Christianity is by throwing those who resist in jail. If that's not shoving your religion on people, I don't know what is. A worldwide Christian anarchist community is the way I view an ideal Christendom. I'm sure my views will get more conservative as I get older. But in the meantime, thanks for taking the time to listen without calling me crazy
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 23, 2015 22:04:27 GMT
Recently, I've been spending my time researching the thoughts and writings of Murray Rothbard, the 20th century economist and philosopher who was the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism. I'm not an anarchist (yet), but Rothbard's ideas are very interesting and are definitely worth a read. Let's look at things from an economic standpoint. Think about defense like a service that people demand. Most people don't want to live in a violent society; therefore, like all scarce goods, defense would have a market price. There would be firms (they could be for profit, non profit, cooperatives, or whatever) that provide these services. Some of these firms would be local and focus more on police matters. Others could be large corporations that provide defense for entire nations. The point is that if people want a service so much that they are willing to pay for it, then entrepreneurs will provide it. This is true on all scales, from large nations down to individuals. These communities need not be small. In fact, with increasing globalization and the internet, it is quite possible that such a Christian anarchist community could include all Christians around the world. If that's not Christendom, then I don't know what is. I think that if private corporations defend a territory, they are actually owning that territory de facto as a country. Once you can control a territory by military ways, you can either command or enslave the people there at your will. It would rather be a military dictatorship. It is indeed a noble aim to try to avoid shoving religion on people. However, it is the nature of all states to shove. It's all they know how to do. I'll give you an example. You brought up that you want to promote Christianity via state propaganda. How will such an undertaking be funded? Most likely by taxes. How are taxes collected? By the state demanding that they be paid. What happens when a citizen resists the state's demands for money? The state will seize their assets and throw them in jail. Following this chain of events, it is logical to conclude that the only way a state can promote Christianity is by throwing those who resist in jail. If that's not shoving your religion on people, I don't know what is. A worldwide Christian anarchist community is the way I view an ideal Christendom. I'm sure my views will get more conservative as I get older. But in the meantime, thanks for taking the time to listen without calling me crazy Taxes must still be paid, whether I use propaganda or not. Take in mind I'm not using tax money just for State propaganda. I'm funding schools, hospitals, public services, and possibly universities, and any other infrastructure and military research. It may be indirectly shoving religion on people, but take in mind it isn't the only use of taxes. They would still be necessary. And no you aren't crazy
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 28, 2015 19:52:35 GMT
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, the school year is ending soon and that means I have to spend increasingly more time working. I think that if private corporations defend a territory, they are actually owning that territory de facto as a country. Once you can control a territory by military ways, you can either command or enslave the people there at your will. It would rather be a military dictatorship. So from what I understand, you think that having a powerful firm be responsible for the defense of a territory would lead to a de facto military dictatorship. I agree that this is a serious risk. However, there is an interesting question that begs to be asked: is a centralized, powerful company really that different from a centralized, powerful state? If the mere existence of power in the hands of an organization always leads to there being a military dictatorship (as you suggest), wouldn't that mean that all states are in fact military dictatorships? In other words: if you can't trust a company to provide a service, what makes you think you can trust the government to provide it? Are not both governments and companies run by men? Are the men who run governments somehow more selfless and less corruptable than the men who run companies? In my opinion, no one said it better than Ludwig von Mises: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallability and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." Taxes must still be paid, whether I use propaganda or not. Take in mind I'm not using tax money just for State propaganda. I'm funding schools, hospitals, public services, and possibly universities, and any other infrastructure and military research. It may be indirectly shoving religion on people, but take in mind it isn't the only use of taxes. They would still be necessary. The idea that taxes are necessary is a very common belief. For as long as mankind can remember, states have used taxes to do all sorts of things, some of them good and some of them bad. But my argument from my previous post still stands. From an economic standpoint, how can taxing the public and then spending that tax money on the public's behalf ever be more efficient than the public spending its own money on its own behalf? It can't. Government can never create anything; if it looks like government created anything, it is only because it took just as much (if not more) from the public to start with. An example of this is a state university. Can the state create a university? In a sense, but only because it stole all that goes into making it from the public (money from taxes, labor from faculty members and staff, etc.) If a university was truly needed (as determined by the aggregation of each individual's needs and preferences manifested in an equilibrated price system), the free market would have provided one and state intervention was unnecessary and wasteful. If a university was not truly needed, then the entire thing was a huge waste of time and resources that could have been spent on other things. This point of view can be applied to all state actions, whether it is the construction of a university, the regulation of trade, war, etc. Don't get me wrong; I'd much rather live in the Christendom you describe than in this messed up world we live in now. But I hope you will take time to think about and study the arguments I have presented, if for no other reason than to find a way to prove me wrong
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on May 8, 2015 2:34:39 GMT
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, the school year is ending soon and that means I have to spend increasingly more time working. I think that if private corporations defend a territory, they are actually owning that territory de facto as a country. Once you can control a territory by military ways, you can either command or enslave the people there at your will. It would rather be a military dictatorship. So from what I understand, you think that having a powerful firm be responsible for the defense of a territory would lead to a de facto military dictatorship. I agree that this is a serious risk. However, there is an interesting question that begs to be asked: is a centralized, powerful company really that different from a centralized, powerful state? If the mere existence of power in the hands of an organization always leads to there being a military dictatorship (as you suggest), wouldn't that mean that all states are in fact military dictatorships? In other words: if you can't trust a company to provide a service, what makes you think you can trust the government to provide it? Are not both governments and companies run by men? Are the men who run governments somehow more selfless and less corruptable than the men who run companies? In my opinion, no one said it better than Ludwig von Mises: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallability and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." Both companies and governments are run by humans alike, I can't deny that. But, companies and governments have different goals. Companies might even be non-profit, but they need an income to stay afloat. And the rights of companies are granted by a government. Furthermore, a company in charge of protecting a community may not lead to military dictatorship, but, even if it isn de iure, that is de facto a government operating within that community, so it's really a bit pointless to abolish government to put a company in it's place. Taxes must still be paid, whether I use propaganda or not. Take in mind I'm not using tax money just for State propaganda. I'm funding schools, hospitals, public services, and possibly universities, and any other infrastructure and military research. It may be indirectly shoving religion on people, but take in mind it isn't the only use of taxes. They would still be necessary. The idea that taxes are necessary is a very common belief. For as long as mankind can remember, states have used taxes to do all sorts of things, some of them good and some of them bad. But my argument from my previous post still stands. From an economic standpoint, how can taxing the public and then spending that tax money on the public's behalf ever be more efficient than the public spending its own money on its own behalf? It can't. Government can never create anything; if it looks like government created anything, it is only because it took just as much (if not more) from the public to start with. An example of this is a state university. Can the state create a university? In a sense, but only because it stole all that goes into making it from the public (money from taxes, labor from faculty members and staff, etc.) If a university was truly needed (as determined by the aggregation of each individual's needs and preferences manifested in an equilibrated price system), the free market would have provided one and state intervention was unnecessary and wasteful. If a university was not truly needed, then the entire thing was a huge waste of time and resources that could have been spent on other things. This point of view can be applied to all state actions, whether it is the construction of a university, the regulation of trade, war, etc. Don't get me wrong; I'd much rather live in the Christendom you describe than in this messed up world we live in now. But I hope you will take time to think about and study the arguments I have presented, if for no other reason than to find a way to prove me wrong Taxes aren't stolen money, as long as a corrupt politician doesn't grab a handful and put it in his pocket without the rest of the people's consent. And a government indirectly creates things out of the tax money. By using tax money to fund Universities, and create jobs, they launch a nation's economy to incredible heights, if done properly. Furthermore, when you hand out taxes, you are contributing to the State, so that in change you get infrastructure and development. So if your government is trustworthy, then there should be no problem, you are having win - win with them. If your government is untrustworthy, then the only solution is to use your absolute power to hang the dissidents, I think...
|
|