|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 23, 2016 16:00:36 GMT -5
I invited new member abcolson over from face book to discuss an interesting topic (mostly for the menfolk) about gainfull employment..."job" vs "Career" (or self employment) and early retirement or no retirement...I want everyone to offer Mr Colson respect as he is a guest I personally invited and he agreed. That is not to say we cant have a "lively" debate...but I wont tolerate any snark or rudness or any "inorganic" derails about topics not germain to the thread. If your on FB you can see the original discussion here: Mr Colson asserted the following philosophy:
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 23, 2016 16:17:44 GMT -5
My first resonse on FB was the following:
|
|
|
Post by abcolson on Aug 23, 2016 23:50:45 GMT -5
Thank you for the invite and hospitality. It shall be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 24, 2016 5:04:51 GMT -5
Your welcome AB. Question....can a father of very limited skills or education be a good father? (Im assuming youll say yes) If yes...if the same father has no other means to provide for his family than gainfull employment at say a textile factory...is it your assertion that that man is somehow existing in a less respectable way than a man who is self employed or independently wealthy ?(by honest means of course)
|
|
|
Post by abcolson on Aug 25, 2016 2:03:00 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Another good question.
Short answers: Yes, a man with little means can be an excellent father; and No, such a man is no less respectable relative to the criteria of providing for his family's financial needs as long as doing so isn't at the expense of other needs.
Consider the father that takes quite seriously and literally the curse "sweat of thy brow" in Genesis and suppose not only does he work extra hours at his job to make money but also has an optional second job to give his family extras. And observe that with 8 hours sleep and 4 hours preparation/commuting time he has at best 1 hour for his family each day, in effect, an absentee father. Is this man being pious? Would you say he is living according to God's will by providing for material needs but no other needs (emotional, spiritual, etc.)? "But he is out of balance and should quit his 2nd job and pursuits of extras" one might say. I could agree but also assert it would just be less of the same.
So I don't see it as respectable/unrespectable or good vs. bad but rather good vs. better.
I don't believe God wants us to go through life miserable or as a beast of burden yet many people who have jobs walk around the workplace like zombies with the life sucked right out of them. Ben Franklin said "Most men die at age 25 but don't get buried until age 65". This is evidenced by people's response to "How are you"? as "Ok...For a Monday" or "Just keeping my head above water". People can retort that they can choose another job but this loses its luster when you consider that most people get jobs outside their degree or that changing jobs becomes more difficult the more established one is. Generally speaking, especially in this economy, people's jobs are jobs of convenience not idealism. The sad truth is that most people lead lives of quiet desperation and my belief is that permanent dependence on employment, with all its limitations and pitfalls, intensifies the desperation.
I do believe God wants the best for us. As Christ said (paraphrased), "If we know how to give our children good things how much more does our Father in heaven know how to provide what is good?" The thing about jobs is that they are self-focused viz. cut-throat tactics and "dog eat dog world". This is how most people have grown to see money and acquiring wealth so it is no wonder they see money and wealth pursuits as sinful or ungodly. But it doesn't have to be. Wealth in the hands of the faithful can be a powerful source to glorify God and spread the gospel. But unless you win the lottery it doesn't just show up in your bank account.
As for the father with limited means, there is nothing wrong with hard work for a season to address an acute situation; however, I question the wisdom of making this a permanent life choice. Biblically speaking, the role of a woman is to obey (respect) her husband and a man should love (sacrifice for) his wife. What do most men do to maintain a lifestyle? They put their wives to work instead of growing outside their comfort zone and "Jobism mentality" to produce wealth. The price they pay is living out of alignment of their core values and being a slave to [lack of] money renting themselves and their wives out to the highest bidder and giving their children away every day to the lowest bidder. I know for a fact that anyone regardless of financial situation can turn their life around in a reasonable amount of time and be free if they have a mind to: most people just don't have a mind to viz. they worship at the altar of comfort zones, entertainment, self gratification and limited living, sacrificing the great for the good and ignoring the call to fulfill dreams and become the person God created them to be. And who is that person? I submit it was the person people were at age 5 and 10 and 15 when they had no inhibitions and could tell you in clear detail what their dreams are and the kind of life they want before they get beaten down by life and die at age 25. We must produce but does it have to be as a human machine for the highest bidder?
I am not suggesting that the ultimate and most worthwhile purpose in life is accumulating wealth; wealth is just a tool. But, if pursued in a godly way the reward is who you become during the journey. Once free without the copious demands of time and energy of a job, aligning with and living one's higher priorities can be maximized such as growing in faith, marital bliss and intimacy, parenting, serving others, civic duties, philanthropy, etc. And this, to me, is a better way to fulfill God's first command to "Be fruitful and multiply".
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 25, 2016 8:53:19 GMT -5
Hi Mr. Colson, thank you for joining us. You bring up an interesting and important topic. I have done a good bit of reading and thinking about it over the years, and I agree with the broad outline of what you have said. Just out of curiosity, would you mind naming the group of people who are mentoring you? I wonder if it is Dave Ramsey's organization. I have read Ramsey's book The Total Money Makeover, and I agree with much of his advice. Another thing that comes to mind, since you used the phrase “early retirement,” is Jacob Fisker's Early Retirement Extreme, which I also agree with on many points. My disagreements with Ramsey and Fisker are generally religious in nature, not about financial nuts-and-bolts. The Catholic view is that religion is everything, and everything is religious, at least in its purpose, which should be to accomplish the holy will of God by fulfilling all one's duties. Thus, even to clean the house becomes a dignified, virtuous, and holy action when it is done in loving conformity with the will of God. I will post some thoughts in reply to your statements when I get a chance – hopefully in a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 25, 2016 18:02:49 GMT -5
Clearly we should work to live, not live to work, at least if by work we mean activity whose main purpose is to obtain worldly goods. Mankind was not made for this world, but for Heaven. There is plenty of work to be done for spiritual purposes, for ourselves and for others, and it would be unreasonable to allow worldly pursuits to get in the way of this spiritual work. In other words, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” Of course, this can be done in a variety of ways, corresponding to the variety of individual talents and circumstances. Replies to some of your points: I think perpetual employment can be degrading for some people and in some situations, but is not so in general. There was work even before the Fall, and as rational beings, we cannot live without some purpose towards which to direct our efforts of intellect and will. As long as we are aware of some good thing that we have not yet achieved, we should feel obliged to work toward it, and since there is always at least one such thing (the perfect love of God), we should keep working as long as we live. If one must keep toiling at an unfulfilling job in order to make ends meet, then this very circumstance makes the work dignified. Likewise if someone were to work such a job in order to assist a person in need. It is the purpose, more than the actual work itself, that makes the work dignified. It might even be prudent for someone to keep working an unfulfilling or unimportant job when he doesn't need the money if it serves to keep him out of trouble. An excess of free time can be more difficult to handle than an unpleasant job. Freedom is commonly understood as the ability to fulfill one's own desires and purposes, at least insofar as they don't harm others, without restraint or interference from the government or anyone else (e.g., street gangs). In this sense, freedom is the opposite of slavery. But the more profound and philosophical idea of freedom is quite different: it is perfect subjection to God alone. “If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” This understanding of freedom is the key to reconciling liberty and authority, which in the typical modern worldview are irreconcilable opposites, so that the more there is of one, the less there must be of the other. This is false because subjection to an authority established by God – as that of parents, of the State, and of ecclesiastical superiors – is really subjection to God and thus is compatible with perfect freedom. The divine plan for this world makes us obey the will of other men, not as men but only as representatives of God, so that we are not obligated to obey any power that is merely human. If an authority gives an order to commit a sin, Christians have the glorious freedom to refuse, because no subordinate authority can lawfully contradict the divine authority, from which alone he receives his power to command. That is to say, Christians have the right to resist every inducement to sin, no matter its source. This is easy to talk about and hard to follow through with, of course, but it is still a glorious truth that deserves to be meditated upon. With this fallen world being what it is, the business of a Christian is to prepare himself to lose everything and suffer everything in order to maintain his love and fidelity to his Creator, who is the Supreme Good. In fact, the opportunity to do this, and the grace to accept it, is one of His choicest blessings. Thus, when freedom is properly understood, a poor Irish family was more free in starving to death by refusing the soup offered to them if they would deny their Catholic faith, than the most wealthy, accomplished, and satisfied person could ever be without the love of God. All that being said, it is quite true that we should seek a certain measure of worldly freedom, as freedom from debt, from slavery, from physical and moral dangers, etc. “Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” I would say that we were created not to be free individuals, but to be a human family united by bonds of blood, of civil society, and of ecclesiastical society. The worldly and spiritual needs of individuals could not be met without these families. More importantly, in society there is a beauty and proportion, and indeed a homage to God, of which lone individuals are not capable. It is a part of God's all-wise plan of creation to make His rational creatures to be one great family. It is deplorable that most kings, lords, and bosses in human history have sought their own comfort and aggrandizement instead of promoting the well-being of their inferiors. I've heard it said that this is the great tragedy of human history. It is a mystery, but perhaps one reason why God has allowed it is to teach mankind that peace and contentment can only be found in Him, and in Heaven. Submission to political and ecclesiastical authority is no more degrading than submission to parental authority. When the ruler(s) and the clergy are good men who perform their duties competently and faithfully, they are naturally loved by the people just like good fathers and mothers are loved by their children. Here is a beautiful example ( link):
|
|
|
Post by abcolson on Aug 26, 2016 4:15:59 GMT -5
Hi Eric,
Thank you for the welcome. I am not affiliated with Jacob Fisker or Dave Ramsey although I have studied him.
Whereas I am a free agent, I would prefer not to disclose my affiliation at this point for several reasons: 1) Joe invited me to discuss concepts and to engage people in discussion about jobs, careers and finances pertaining to Godly living and I want to keep that pure without any perceived pretense of using this forum for PR or other types of gain, and 2) The nature of Mentorship is intimate and highly personal and requires a humble and teachable heart and as such does not lend itself to recruitment, mass marketing or other standard PR venues. .....(Redacted commentary.....Tony you may pm me for explanation)......Voxx admin)
|
|
|
Post by abcolson on Aug 26, 2016 4:31:54 GMT -5
Hi Eric, Very thoughtful points indeed. You have no idea how close we are in agreement to many of your stated convictions and beliefs although there may be a few minor positions of difference which is normal and expected. I don't presume to think that I can (or should) change anyone's heart and mind when it comes to matters of faith. All I can do is share my perspectives and beliefs and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
If you read the entire FB discussion referenced by Joe when starting this thread you will see that I make a distinction between working a job and producing. In short, the passage "A man without a vision shall perish" supports our shared position that we should always be industrious for a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is worldly oriented and sometimes spiritual; sometimes it is self oriented and other times directed towards serving others.
I still maintain that jobs are primarily self serving. I meet people frequently that tell me they love there job because it fulfills their passion and helps people. I congratulate them for finding a certain level and happiness and fulfillment in life but then challenge them to give up their income and donate their service for free much like the priest in your example. If the purpose is the primary objective then remove the contamination of money from clouding the true intent of the heart and let the employer use that money for some other good purpose. It becomes quickly apparent that that is an untenable option and that in fact all their altruistic reasons are still subordinated to personal gain.
Same can be said about a person working an unfulfilling job if the purpose is to stay out of trouble. Does that make the person wrong? No, of course not, especially if it is for a season. But I could also argue in most cases that if a person did that for the rest of their life that probably they are just giving up and wasting the gifts God gave them although it is not my place to judge. Not that cleaning toilets (for example) cannot be done to serve God but a person can always talk to someone, give a word of praise, uplift another, spread the Gospel and grow to do something which reaches 100s or 1,000s instead of 10s. It all comes down to growth personally and spiritually and a decision to develop potential and be and serve God better.
Christ told the rich man to give up all his wealth in order to be his disciple. He said this not because money is inherently bad but because this man had made it his master. For others the master may be pride, sloth, power, science or some other vice. When the heart is right money and power cannot cause unrighteousness or damnation. I know plenty of people who have made their fortunes as servant leaders and money flows to them like a river because their success was based on Godly principles and putting others first. Some are doctors who continue to work without pay so they can help people and practice medicine according to their conscience and training without being dictated to by insurance companies or the government. Some fly around the country and world on their own dime to mentor and help others, some donate large sums of money to their churches, to build baseball diamonds for neighborhood kids, to build hospitals and museums, support scholarships and even donate their time to go to foreign countries and build houses for the poor. And I have heard many say they could give away their money because they know where it came from. Most of these people did not start out wealthy (some started in rags) but they could not have accomplished these things had they chosen to remain stagnant, small and permanently dependent on a job. One could argue that these kinds of exploits are not for everyone and that everyone is different; however, while perhaps true in some cases my observation is that most of the time this attitude is a cop-out. I use these examples to illustrate (in my opinion) the truest and purest form of service where money is not present to cloud or contaminate intentions much as the priest in the vignette you provided.
I do have to provide some pushback on the freedom issue.
First, freedom is not anarchy and does not come without responsibility. To whom much is given much is expected. Yes, we were created to be social creatures with a hole in our heart that only God can fill. Yes, we have a connection to God through our parents and we need to honor our heavenly and earthly parents. You say the following:
"Submission to political and ecclesiastical authority is no more degrading than submission to parental authority."
Perhaps this is where we start to differ in our interpretations of God's word and will and mutual tolerance and respect must be exercised. I can only share with you my beliefs.
I do believe we were created to be free answerable only to God. For many hundreds of years the Jewish people lived this way until human weakness during the days of Samuel clamored for a Jewish king. Reluctantly, God gave in. Until this time we had the "civil society" where people personally shared in the responsibility for keeping God's word and maintaining society which was then outsourced to King Saul. Maintaining spiritual connections through the polity and prophets may have been standard operating procedures prior to Christ but I believe Christ changed this. For instance, the Lord's Prayer starts out with "Our Father...". Unfortunately, this English translation is misleading. The original Greek has Christ using not a formal and aloof term but a more intimate and endearing term which would be more accurately translated "Our Daddy...". I feel this is significant in that it establishes a dispensation for a direct and personal relationship between God and Man without intermediaries.
I also believe that God has no interest in the political affairs of Man and as such does not intend for us to submit to any political or ecumenical authority. Even parents as God's plan was for a man to leave his father and mother to take a wife and become one flesh.
But back to this thread, this is not the kind of freedom I refer to. I am not talking about spiritual freedom and "the truth shall set you free" (as it pertains to sin) but rather freedom from financial bondage and the forces of this world which work to keep people small and waste the potential and gifts God has given us. Time is life and vice verse. My original post was that job/income dependence robs people of time and life and sacrifices higher priorities such as serving God, marriage, family, etc. In the entire body of Christ some may be called to be the priests and ministers of the head but that doesn't make those of us in the hands and feet any less important or privileged than the head. And as such I don't believe it is God's will to impose the lifestyle and sacrifices of the head on the rest of the body (somebody has to procreate). And if a person truly feels a calling to wear the priestly shackle (truly, this is what the collar represents in Christianity) around their neck who am I to judge? I just note it for what it is and help explain it as best I can to others who are struggling in life and help them live and excel on Earth in a Godly way.
I think you bring up some really good points and I thank you and Joe for the opportunity to discuss. It is clear to me that you are a person of deep convictions who wants to serve the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and that these types of issues are important to you. I hope bouncing these ideas back and forth has helped you as they have helped me.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2016 5:08:46 GMT -5
Well we are having a good conversation. However refering to the Priesthood as a shackle...and personal interpretation of scripture as a positive good are areas where A) Obviously you dont hold the Catholic faith (which I knew) B) You may know some things about economics...but your views on Authority...freedom...The Church are positively French Revolutionary Voltaire-ism. And as such anti-christian. Now yes you are my guest here but that does not mean you have free reign to promote error....even if you are not aware (yet) that they are error. There is a saying we use here..."Error has no rights" It is fine with me to discuss these areas where you have entered into the differences between the protestant view of economics and prosperity and the Catholic view. A Priest is no more shackled than any Married Man is shackled.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 26, 2016 8:51:35 GMT -5
If you read the entire FB discussion referenced by Joe when starting this thread you will see that I make a distinction between working a job and producing. In short, the passage "A man without a vision shall perish" supports our shared position that we should always be industrious for a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is worldly oriented and sometimes spiritual; sometimes it is self oriented and other times directed towards serving others. Mr. Colson, I am not on Facebook so I can't see your discussion there. It does let me view your home page, which says: This World Wide Group ( link) is affiliated with Amway, the well-known multilevel marketing company. I don't mean to poison or to short-circuit our discussion by bringing this up, but I think it is relevant, and you have already stated it publicly elsewhere. Most of what follows, I was going to say before I learned that Amway was your plan for earning a passive income to free up your time for things more important than a job. So the Amway connection doesn't make or break the argument. Some individuals may acquire enough productive assets to live off the passive income stream, but this could never work for the bulk of society because it takes a lot of human labor to actually produce things. Without workers and managers, there is no production, and therefore no productive assets. I would guess that in most productive enterprises it takes many workers to make enough profit to support one owner living off his passive business income. If the ratio is 10 to 1 (it's probably higher), then only one out of eleven people can possibly be supported by passive income. It often happens that what works for some cannot work for all. Another example is education. Society can benefit greatly from a handful of highly educated researchers in the hard sciences. Such people can be very well compensated without being a burden on society (i.e. failing to pull their economic weight). But if, say, 10 percent of young people were counseled to obtain Ph.D.'s in hard sciences, with promises of high incomes and high demand for their work, most of them would have to be disappointed in the end because society doesn't need and will not employ 10 percent of its members as research scientists. The same goes for retail sales, which is the real business of Amway distributors. Only a small portion of the population can be employed in this segment of the economy because the demand for it is limited. And only a much smaller portion of the population can be at the upper levels of a multilevel marketing organization and earn enough passive income to free them from the need to work a regular job. So, while it is true that working for money should be subordinated to higher purposes in life, it is not possible for more than a small fraction of the population to actually be free from the need to work to earn a living. Thus it would be wrong to say that passive income is “the way people ought to live,” as if it should or could be achieved by every right-thinking and virtuous person. I hope to reply to a lot of other things you've said, but I think this post gets to the heart of the matter as far as economics is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 26, 2016 18:39:18 GMT -5
I agree that the schools are a disaster. I think their worst failing is that they don't adapt their expectations and resources to the children's abilities. Intelligence is normally distributed in the human population, and as a practical matter it has a large variance; that is, very smart children can learn and retain 100x more information, and can think 100x faster and better, than stupid children. That is how God made the human race. The schools try their best to work against this fact of nature, by telling children that they can do anything they set their minds to, that everyone can and should go to college, and especially by spending huge amounts of resources on the stupid children instead of on the smart children who could actually benefit from it. You may have guessed that I don't think most children can become “well-rounded independent thinkers.” Perhaps it depends on what you mean by independent. If you mean “not a slavish follower of whatever is commonly believed in one's own social circles,” then perhaps 20% of the population can attain that degree of independence (without a special grace from God). If you mean “able to see through clever deceptions” or “able to advance the state of human knowledge in some way,” then few even among the brightest would qualify. I think the near-universal acceptance by smart people of evolution as the true scientific explanation for how today's living things originated from non-living matter by purely natural processes is proof of the great difficulty of becoming an independent thinker. The prevalence of atheism among intellectuals also proves it. Other examples could be given. The fact that most people are followers and that education should take this into account is discussed by Orestes Brownson, a brilliant intellect, great American patriot, erstwhile Unitarian minister, and a convert to the Catholic Church when he was near 40 years old. I've posted some clips from his works in this thread: Education of the few and the many (Brownson)State-controlled compulsory education is very much at odds with American ideals of personal liberty, and yet most people, even conservatives, support it very strongly. The exclusion of religion from the school curriculum instills into children the idea that religion has nothing to do with the real business of life. The better way in a country that is religiously divided is for schools to be privately owned and operated, but publicly funded, i.e. the voucher system. That way religious families could send their children to religious schools of their choosing. This was done in several European countries in the 19th century; it was called the denominational system. Your comment about what children want to be reminded me of this:
|
|
|
Post by abcolson on Aug 27, 2016 0:57:09 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I must admit I don't know how to respond. Clearly, I have crossed a line somewhere. I meant no disrespect and only meant to share my beliefs as it pertained to the topic of this thread. I in no way meant to seem judgmental or self-righteous regarding my faith.
Yes, I have an affiliation with Amway and World Wide Dream Builders. They are both top rate organizations founded and operating in Christian values and I am proud to be affiliated with them both; although, I think you misunderstand my role with them and my reasons for being on this thread. I did not come to discuss or pitch the mechanics of things I do to live out my beliefs and principles; although, I referenced people I know in a general way as real world examples of my statements. My path doesn't have to be your path. But, I still maintain that anyone can embrace free enterprise in their own way to maximize their potential and life experience and provide for their family or they can rationalize and put their wife to work.
There is much more I can say but hesitate to. Please advise on the constructs for commentary. I am here to be a friend.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 5:14:59 GMT -5
You are free to speak your mind...and the line you crossed you crossed without knowing it so you have offended no one....if you think my response jarring that is the point...the time is short my friend...the luxury of blythely chitchatting about the truth has to give way to embracing and following the Truth...the reason for this forums existence is to expound..defend...educate...promote and restore the Catholic faith. I invited you because ,as Eric said, many of your concepts are sound and square clearly with Catholicism. But a great many do not. A great many are American premises that as I said have as their father the Revolutionarys of France not the God of truth...again not your fault up to now because these unGodly concepts are mixed with mothers milk in the USA as the nation itself has been founded on them. Now in full disclosure...the best thing that can come of our discussion is our intellects are expanded...but your Soul is saved by embracing the Catholic faith and no other. That is why in these discussions...tropes and rejoinders against the Church will not go unanswered...for your sake. A lesser result is you go back out into the general interweb and do not spread falsehoods about Catholicism at least out of respect for your Traditional Catholic friends even if you foolishly decide not to join us.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 27, 2016 6:48:24 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I must admit I don't know how to respond. Clearly, I have crossed a line somewhere. I meant no disrespect and only meant to share my beliefs as it pertained to the topic of this thread. I in no way meant to seem judgmental or self-righteous regarding my faith. FWIW, I didn't take offense at all. I didn't mean to beat you over the head, and I hope I didn't come across like that. It's fine with me to discuss the nature of employment and work, but since our disagreements flow from our religious differences, in my mind that's where the conversation should lead. I can't reply to your ideas about employment without explaining the Catholic principles on which my thinking is based. I wonder if you take the transcendentalist view of faith: that it is a kind of intuition about spiritual things, received from God by each man, and not a proper subject for rational debate or proof. You said, "I don't presume to think that I can (or should) change anyone's heart and mind when it comes to matters of faith. All I can do is share my perspectives and beliefs and let the Holy Spirit do the rest," which sounds a bit transcendentalist to me. Or maybe you are just being polite. The Catholic definition of faith is the firm adherence of the mind to what God has revealed and the Church has proposed. This is very different from the usual Protestant view, in which faith is synonymous with trust or confidence. Here is an example of a Catholic prayer called the Act of Faith: "O my God, I firmly believe all the sacred truths which Thy holy Catholic Church believes and teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." Here's a lengthy description of Catholic faith: Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Treatise on Faith. Here's something brief (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, 1961): Voxx may not allow it here, and that's fine with me of course, but I would not think it judgmental or self-righteous for a Protestant to claim that he is correct and try to prove it. To believe anything is to think it's true and that contradictory views are false, so if you are a believing Protestant then you must think you're right and I am wrong. The only alternative is the modern insanity that you are "right for you" and I am "right for me," which denies the very notion of objective truth. I would much rather talk with someone who believes he is right than someone who says that everyone is right. No problem at all; I understand that you are not trying to sell us anything. Could you say more about your term "free enterprise"? I thought you were saying that people should try to get away from paid employment (working for money) so that they would have more time for other things, which I understood to mean that people should develop a passive income from investment (ownership of productive assets). Perhaps what you really mean is that each man should be his own boss, i.e. self-employed, if circumstances allow? I think this is also impractical for the vast majority of the population. It may give more flexibility in choosing when and where to work, but I don't see that it frees up time for family and other pursuits. Many business owners find that the job is very demanding of time and energy just to keep things afloat. You said that Free Enterprise was flourishing in early America, but most people then were hard-working farmers or tradesmen and lacked our modern labor-saving conveniences. Sure they had family time, but they spent most of it working. Voxx can answer this, but let me just say I think we're all being friendly. Please don't take offense at having your posts redacted; there is no personal animosity behind it, but only a love for Catholic truth. We are talking in public, and Voxx is morally responsible for whatever appears at this site, so there is less freedom for Protestant ideas to be aired. In a private conversation, you could say whatever's on your mind and the responsibility would be entirely yours.
|
|