Society's Rights Vs. Capitalism's Rights

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Many in society have been taught to believe that the public has no right to tell corporations what to do with their money any more than a private citizen has the right to tell his neighbor what to do with the money he earns from a business or store. This is not a fair analogy.

True enough that a private citizen doesn't have the right to tell his neighbor what to do with his money but the public does have the right to tell corporations what to do with their money. Why? Because corporations couldn't exist without very special and unique government help. Corporations are special legal entities that have unique rights, privileges, and protections given by government that ordinary citizens and business owners do not have. And, since the government in a democracy like ours comes from the people (the majority in society) the people have the right to determine how corporations act and how they spend their money. The majority in a democracy own the franchise of government! 

Therefore, the public has a right to demand something from corporations in exchange for giving corporations the right to exist. Would I not have the right, even as a private citizen, to demand something from a business built on my property? The same logic applies to the relationship between the public (society) and corporations. Corporations cannot hide behind the specious argument of rugged individualism!

Many in our society have been brainwashed to believe that an absolutely free market place with no government controls or regulations would automatically fix our nation's problems. Have we forgotten already that the Great Depression of the early 1930's was the direct result of a free market economy with no government control or regulation?

Rugged individualism teaches that the individual has the right to benefit from social and economic interactions with society, but that society has no right to demand any benefit from the individual.

However, if it is true that a person has a moral right to be a rugged individualist, looking out only for himself, then it also follows that individuals (plural), by mutual consent and agreement, have a moral right to look out for themselves. Such a moral right of individuals (plural) is the basis for majority rule and unions in our society.

Certainly, if an individual is benefiting from commerce with the many individuals of society, then the many individuals of society have a right, by mutual agreement among themselves, to demand certain benefits from the individual, benefits such as decent wages, clean air, clean water, safe working conditions, safe products, etc.

No one has absolute individual rights in society. Those who want absolute individual rights must live outside of society. Those who want to be part of society with the benefits of government and law must be willing to grant what the majority want, even if it's at their own expense.

Yes, minorities have rights, but the majority has more rights. Absolute individualism is absolutely unfair. The majority has the right to tax an individual and collect money to build a park even if that individual doesn’t want the park and will never use the park. The majority has a right to tax an individual and use the money to provide welfare or help to those who genuinely can’t help themselves in society.
 
Self proclaimed rugged individualists in society want all the benefits of what the majority has to provide - government, law, security, and protection - but they do not want give up anything to the majority in exchange for these benefits. These so-called rugged individualists are the real leeches and parasites of society.

The fact is there are no real rugged individualists in society!  

If capitalism and social consciousness cannot coexist then how is it that modern industrialized nations such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and others can have a high degree of social consciousness and still be capitalistic with a thriving free enterprise.

The rich are not paying their fair share of the taxes. Even billionaire Warren Buffet has said that his office secretary pays more in taxes in proportion to her income than he does.

In fact, one of Senator Obama's ideas for reviving our economy is by the federal government spending money to repair the infrastructure in our country (roads, bridges, highways, etc.). Much of this money would come from taxing the wealthy and corporations and making them pay their fair share taxes.

People can still become wealthy in a socialist society but not at the detrimental expense of others in society.

Many of the basic rights, especially regarding safety in the work place, that we take for granted were not graciously given to society by the rich but won by the blood of bludgeoned workers and strikers in the early twentieth century.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil, but that "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil." That love of money must be constrained in society or the worst aspects of capitalism will make a living hell for millions. Thank God, of course, that there are some capitalists who don't put money first or love money. God bless them!

The Christian Scriptures have much to say against the rich and wealthy who obtain and maintain their wealth through the detriment of the rest of society (James 2: 6, 7; 5: 1-6).

 

Rational Christian Answer To Ayn Rand

by Babu G. Ranganathan

As a Christian I wish to respond to Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy and her so-called arguments, which she claims are rational, against Christian altruism. I am thoroughly familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy, but she misunderstands and misapplies certain Christian teachings. We shall examine these and other points in this article. No doubt, Ayn Rand would be totally correct in her "Objectivist" philosophy if Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory were, indeed, scientifically valid and true.

The actual and objective scientific evidence, however, shows that there are natural limits to evolution in nature and that we are not here by chance or by macro-evolutionary processes. Natural selection in nature is not a creative force as many think. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and that have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are naturally possible.

Genetic information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance. Therefore, it's far more logical and rational to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Micro-evolution, or variations within a biological kind such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, and cows, is science but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution, variations across kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA in nature to direct the formation of more DNA.

The mathematical odds of even the simplest DNA molecule coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in a dictionary by randomly hitting keys on a computer keyboard.

What about "Junk DNA?" The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Regarding protein molecules, it is has been shown that some individual amino acid molecules making-up proteins can come into existence by chance. But, it has never been shown that the various individual amino acid molecules can come together into a precise sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Besides all this, none of these molecules can exist for long outside of an already complete and living cell! In other words, the cell could not have gradually evolved. (Please read author's essay The Natural Limits of Evolution at his website, www.religionscience.com, for a comprehensive and in-depth scientific analysis and discussion of this issue).

There is a God to Whom Ayn Rand and all of us must give an account. God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that God be the center of our lives.

Ayn Rand misunderstands the concept of Christian altruism and the proper context in which Christian altruism is to be applied. Christian altruism does not mean that we should give to others unconditionally in all circumstances because that would not be for the true benefit of others. Christian love seeks what is for the true benefit of others, not whatever they desire or want. For example, the Bible teaches that a person who is not willing to work should not eat. Therefore, feeding such a person is wrong since it would only be helping to increase the selfishness of such a person.

There is a difference between selfness and selfishness. The first involves proper Biblical love and care for oneself as God intends. The latter is based on ego and pride. Christianity is not against legitimate self-interest. We are created in God's image so, of course, God would want us to love ourselves as well as to love others.

Ayn Rand rightly claims that "A" cannot be "non A" but she misapplies this principle in her critique of Christianity. For example, when Christ said that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" there is no true contradiction (i.e. "A" being "non A"), as Ayn Rand claims, because the both cases in which the words "first" and "last" are used within the context of the passage have different applications and reasons for usage. Jesus was simply saying that in this world a person is considered "first" or "last" for different reasons than why a person is considered "first" or "last" in God's kingdom. Again, there is no real contradiction (i.e. there is no "A" equated with "non A").

According to Christian teaching, the individual (the "self") is not an end to itself but rather the "self" is a means to an end - that end being to live for God and to please Him and to do His will. Part of living for God is to do good for ourselves as well as for others because we belong to God and are owned by Him.

Christianity is not against the enjoyment of material things; it is against the worship of material things. God alone is worthy of worship! The Bible does not teach that money itself is the root of all evil but rather the Bible teaches that "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil."

God is glorified when His creatures enjoy the provisions, bounty, and wealth that He provides, but if it is God's will and purpose in a particular case for an individual to give up all that he has and to give it to the poor then it is only right that the individual do so. After all, everything belongs to God, even the wealth a person gains in this life for nothing would be possible without God's power and undeserving grace.

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not against self-defense. "Turning the other cheek" simply means that Christians should not retaliate against personal insults by returning insults. "Slapping another's cheek" in Jewish culture was considered a figure of speech for throwing verbal insult at someone. Jesus, in fact, allowed His disciples to carry swords for self-defense. Jesus personally gave approval to His disciples to carry two swords, again for self-defense (Luke 22: 35-38). This is why Peter pulled out a sword to protect Jesus at the time of His arrest. However, Jesus told Peter to put away the sword because it was the Father's will at that time for Christ to be delivered to suffering and death in order to pay for the sins of the world.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism or making a profit. What is evil is when profits are made without any sense of obligation and duty to God and His commandments. It is God Who enables the capitalist to make money and it is God who requires the capitalist to have due and proper concern for his fellowman's health and welfare. Profits made at the expense of God's commandments are an abomination to the Creator and society. CEOs take notice! My fellow conservatives and Republicans take notice!

The above are just some of the Christian arguments refuting Ayn Rand's philosophy.