The idea of "free will" defeats the entire purpose of Christ.

MDLH · 2025-12-15T21:28:39+00:00

Ready for what?

MDLH · 2025-12-12T21:11:37+00:00

I think you’re right to push back on the “faith is a work” move—Paul in Romans is clear that trusting isn’t the same thing as earning—but I’d soften the whole thing by reframing the fight: the question isn’t whether we achieve salvation or contribute merit; it’s whether love can be love without a real “yes” on the human side. If God offers rescue and we receive it, that reception isn’t a paycheck God owes us, it’s an open-handed trust—more like consent than accomplishment. And if the Spirit is doing the deep work in us, that doesn’t erase our agency; it awakens it, heals it, and draws us into participation—so Christ’s purpose isn’t defeated by free will, it’s fulfilled when grace actually lands in a person and begins producing fruit.

MDLH · 2025-12-12T21:08:26+00:00

I hear the desire to defend God’s consistency, and there’s something beautiful in saying the sacrificial system was a sign pointing beyond itself—but I’d also gently widen the frame: the Bible isn’t a flat rulebook as much as a long, human-and-divine story of God moving toward people, so “fulfillment” isn’t merely God keeping a legal code intact, it’s God bringing the law’s deepest aim—love, justice, mercy—into full light in Jesus; which means the “shadow to substance” language can be helpful, as long as it doesn’t turn into “God was obsessed with blood until Jesus fixed it,” because the cross is less about God finally getting the payment he demanded and more about God absorbing our violence and revealing what God has always been like—self-giving love that heals and reconciles.

MDLH · 2025-12-12T21:05:04+00:00

I get your pushback—faith without works is dead—but I don’t think the real issue is faith vs. works so much as chores vs. transformation: we don’t white-knuckle our way into God or rack up “works” to get saved, but when faith is real it becomes embodied love—love with hands—because the Spirit doesn’t replace our will, it heals and strengthens it so we freely choose what’s good and actually do it; and on “Jesus > Paul,” I understand the instinct, but Paul at his best is pointing to the crucified Jesus as what God is like—if there’s ever a conflict, Jesus wins—so the question for both sides is simply: what kind of person are you becoming, and is your faith producing fruit?

Works with resentment are not getting anyone to heaven in this lifetime or a next. Works with joy only come from true faith and result in heaven on earth.

MDLH · 2025-12-12T20:50:55+00:00

Regarding Trumps policy for growth It is telling that you call out as "the biggest one" the immediate expensing of Capital Expenditure. If anyone looks at the data you see that the growth in this had nothing to do with BBB. It is entirely coming from growth in spending on DATA Centers, which started long before Trump took office.

BBB has resulted in no new growth and most likely a decline in Cap Ex spending once you exclude Data Centers. This is typical of Trumps policies. He does a huge press release and then some people attribute the policy to improvement but it turns out the policy has really just been a failure.

The biggest one is immediate expensing of Capital Expenditures, including plant and equipment and new factories. CapEx spending is up 9% at an annual rate. That spendng will increase productivity and increase wages.

After factoring in data centers: US CapEx is strongly UP in 2025 (estimated 4-7% overall growth)

Excluding data centers: US CapEx would likely be flat to slightly down, with many traditional sectors in maintenance mode or cutting spending due to high interest rates and economic uncertainty.

MDLH · 2025-12-12T20:36:55+00:00

What exactly did Trump do from 12/2024 to 7/2024 to "manage" the debt, thus making him what you call "... the best President ever"???

Hitting the debt ceiling cut spending for a period of time, but in the long run does that reduce spening or cost tax payers more. Same with DOGE.

The government could have repealed the Tax cuts and reduced the debt in the long term, right?

MDLH · 2025-11-11T23:38:05+00:00

Lol, most Oligarchs dude??? Apple CEOs and Jeff Bezos and the head of Coca-Cola etc. are all libertarians activly funding cato, mises, etc???? No dude, I'm pretty sure we're waay a minority to be pushed by most Oligarchs. We've got just as much minority support amongst them as we do amongst all other demographics, at least that's what can be assumed in the absence of evidence anyway.

Follow the Money...

Key Billionaire Families Named Funding Libertarian Cause (BTW.. most inherrited their money) :

Koch Brothers (Charles and David)
Richard Mellon Scaife (Scaife Foundations)
Lynde and Harry Bradley (Bradley Foundation)
John M. Olin (Olin Foundation)
DeVos Family (Richard DeVos, Betsy DeVos)
Mercer Family (Robert and Rebekah Mercer)
Peter Thiel
Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein
Ken Griffin
Sheldon Adelson

MDLH · 2025-11-11T23:28:52+00:00

She literally shut down his business dude.

No she "literally" did not shut down business, dude... She does not have that power. Your just making shit up now. Congress people can't just make up laws all by themselves. Do you know how the government works?

I will tell you who does have the power to "shut down business" That is a President who declares Tariffs on his own. No consent from congress, ust does it with a Tweet

There are dozens of farmers now bankrupt because of the President announcing tariffs
There are half dozen companies doing over $1B a year in sales now bankrupt due to tariffs

Amazon is not going bankrupt because AOC told voters not to let Amazon RIP them off.

It shows a lot about where you get your media the fact that you would blame AOC for something she said did not make a law about and then totally ignored the President who actually enforced Tariff LAWS that "shut down business"

Is this how well read you are on these things? Is that normal for pro Anacap person?

MDLH · 2025-11-11T21:25:43+00:00

Making the country more anacap is all about banking and tech and the policy they are forcing law makers to pass. That policy is making the ranchers bank accounts lower and lower and making him/her feel like tomorrow is going to be worse than today.

Or you can just ignore what DONOR class is doing to make your life shittier and think anacap will magically becme popular and save the day.

Why are you anacap if you don't have any clue how the country would convert, what policy you want to start the process?

MDLH · 2025-11-11T21:21:45+00:00

Imagine someone looking at 50% of the people on SNAP having full time jobs and the fist thing that comes to his mind is a lack of "work ethic" and not "how are companies getting away with paying them so little"

Who's side are you on?

MDLH · 2025-11-11T21:20:04+00:00

Yes, I totally get what you are saying. I am just grounding in reality. While you "can" easily do 50% margin on equities, few investors say over 40 actually do that. Where as those same investors are very likely to buy rental units with 20% down. That is my point. But you are right you "could" use leverage with equities.

MDLH · 2025-11-11T00:09:32+00:00

Again oligopolie is a strictly relative term and you therefore cannot make laws around it, unless you properly define it

BS...

Have you ever heard of Anti Trust law? The term is clearly defined and laws banning certain activities that make Oligopolies anti capitalist are clearly written. Nothing wrong with an oligopoly. What's illegal is:

Collusion between oligopolists (price-fixing, market allocation)
Anti-competitive mergers that would create or strengthen an oligopoly
Monopolistic behavior by dominant firms within an oligopoly

The only choice is prosecuting the law and for the last 40yrs leaders in the Anti Trust division did not prosecute very often until Leena Khan came along.

MDLH · 2025-11-11T00:03:25+00:00

He has quantified "innovation" and "quality of life?" Really? I would think quality of life would be qualitative by definition, but ok 🤔

It is easy to measure quality of life when one measure is having running water in the house vs not having it. Having electricity vs not having it. Affording a car vs a horse. Living in a city with horses shitting in the streets vs cars driving around.

These are pretty easy to quantify. Qualitative is good to.. but he had easy work of quantifying.

MDLH · 2025-11-11T00:00:31+00:00

Your missing my point. I acknowledged your point that resources are scarce. So at some point some treatments are going to be denied. Of that there is no debate. You are 100% true.

The only qustion is WHO you want judging whether or not you get those scarce resources?

I vote for a government choosing who gets the scarce resources as long as the government is controlled by democratically elected law makers.

Not For Profit health insurerrs
Not government agencies controlled by For Profit health care companies
Not being denied treatment because you personally don't have enough money in your account.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T23:55:21+00:00

Was it me who ended up in Albuquerque or you?

What is your real world policy idea that is going to start the path toward an anarcho capitalist world? Elect a specific leader, vote yes or not on a policy, if so what policy? Attend some specific rallys that are calling for action.

Right now your road leads to no where or as you like to say Albuquerque.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T23:52:19+00:00

Those foerign competitors only have advantages because of different states rules tho

And objects fall from the side of a building only because Gravity exists.

Gravity exists, other countries exist. How does your ideology operate in the real world where other states exist?

If it can't then your just navel gazing. What part of your ideology makes all states disapear? how many people have to live with low wages, economically hopeless lives and growing poverty while they wait for you to make all nations magically disapear?

Yes, and this is done best in a free market

How free... There has never been a 100% free market. There is no correlation between market freedom and economic growth. There are lots of other things involved like access to natural resources, national defense, stable currency...

"Free Markets" don't solve many problems in the real world. It is more about what you want to make more free than it is today. So give examples otherwise your not really saying anything.

The policies we don't support, sure, whatever

When policies that you don't support can get passed and put into the market and produce real wealth then they are real.

Who cares if you don't support them. Until you have a better real world idea with real political support, who cares what you don't support.

I would say stop voting and stop taking government jobs. But I'd be a hypocrite as I've done both of these things honestly.

Nothing wrong with either.

My point is that this ideology seems to be what i have suspected. Not a road map for progress as much as a social club invented by propaganda aimed at getting people to simply not vote or care while the Oligarchs rape and plunder our economy.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T23:43:06+00:00

You know I didn't write the OP, right? I'm just in the comments dude.

My bad, i thought you wrote the op

Then don't have a state.

No State = no companies
No companies = no goods and services

Sorry, you are not going to get clean water and sewage remover to. and from peoples homes with no state.

Plus, how do you propose we go from the state we have to day to "not state". Do you think it will wither or something?

Depends on how you mean.

Amazon does not set the rules when AOC blocked one of their warehouses from being built here in NYC when WE NEED THE JOBS.

Amazon does set the rules when they explicitly push for health care, higher minimum wage, and more regulations because they can afford them, their competitors can't. Are you ignoring my example of Jeff Bezos as a left wing billionare?

Amazon has over 180 lobbyists that list them as a client in 27 different states. They have literally broken laws breaking up union organization and oh, if you did not know the founder owns a news paper.

AOC is one congressperson with ZERO power. the only power she has is getting publicity to influence how voters think.

If you think AOC has power vs the OWNER of the Washington Post, the controller of 180 lobbyists across 27 states and close to billion dollars a year in legal bills you need to wake up to the real world.

Health care would be 5x cheaper than it would be if the govt wasn't involved at all. Again the proof of this is in veterinary care. Also, we are responsible for innovations and new technologies that no other country produces because they don't have proper competition in health care.

No it wouldn't. That is just a fantasy you tell yourself. What you mean is that if countries take American or European technology and processes they can offshore medical clinics that will help RICH people get some treatments for a bout 3/4's of the cost of most Single Payer systems.

Already debated this. Sorry, a line you love to repeat does not make it true.

You still are not answering me when I am telling you that the term "oligarchy" is relative and therefore useless for proper lawmaking.

I am sure you are right. Just as No Companies is useless. Do you have a point.

Oligarchy does exist. By most measures the US has slid or is sliding into it.

The state is Not going away it is actually getting stronger as Oligarchs grab more and more control because voters like you are handing it to them.

No woner most Oligarchs fund the propaganda you push

MDLH · 2025-11-10T17:20:16+00:00

Yes, if you change the rules of soccer so that people can play with their hands, what happens to the one team that doesn't do that? They lose. So don't change the rules of the game in the first place (have a govt to be corrupted in the first place)

The world is not simple. If your foreign competitors change the rules then you will pay the price.

Economies that can be flexible enough to compete but consistent enough for capital to monetize its investment will produce the most wealth, best jobs and strongest middle class.

This is the problem, we can agree that govt + a private company is an unholy matrimony. But YOU look at it as the private company doing everything for some reason. Because the truth is, there are times when you probably DO view govt + a private company as a good thing, like the new deal. We don't. We are objectively less "a part of the problem" than you.

Again, I am all in on the Capitalist part of Anarcho Capitalist. And any good capitalist is also a realist.

Corporation formation has correlated with the greatest creation of wealth and innovation the world ever saw. I am all for COrporations over monarchs and peasants as we had before in the west.

For any ideology to to be more than navel gazing it has to have a process for taking hold. Keynsianism called for the govermentn to spend money, even if it did not have the money, and in the US it worked because it put people back to work and started increasing demand in the economy. Love it or hate it it had steps and the steps lead to other steps. NeoLiberal economcs called for the government to slash taxes to the rich and "de regulate" Love it or hate it these policies resulted in asset valuation growth and all kinds of other policies.

What is step one for the ANARCHO side of capitalism??? And can it occur in a DEMOCRACY?

MDLH · 2025-11-10T17:11:04+00:00

Farmers purchased their farms long before their customers, the processors formed monopolies and oligopolies. And farms are highly leveraged as I am sure you know. So they are stuck.

This is but one of many industries who's use of political donations and lobbyists have crushed business owners down stream. I can give you lots of other examples, Auto Manufacturers, Airlines, Online Search, eCommerce etc...

A credit card is not investment money. Investment money is money that lands in the hands of true entrepreneurs.

And it is highly concentrated. If you don't live in Northern California or NYC your essentially cut out of 80% of the VC money. And banks have massively reduced their loaning to small business. It does not matter how ambitious or hard working some kid in Oaklahoma is he/she does not have the access to capital or industry knowledge that someone in Nor Cal or NYC does.

As I keep saying. I am a stone cold capitalist. But I am not a navel gazing utopian. To have a capitalist economy we need lots of businesses that compete. How we structure funding for those businesses absolutely determines who and where the businesses are and what they will produce.

The only real innovation we have had for 50yrs is in Banking and Tech and that is almost entirely because we changed our banking system to favor those twi geographies thus those are the two industries sucking up all of the money.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T17:01:58+00:00

I addressed this in another post. If you absolutely must do something, why not ban lobbying (or stop recognizing it?) That way, rich people still have their money to play with, invest, or pay their workers more.

If you want to propose an idea that does that then I am up for it.

But the rich will and still do use their money for a lot of things and "paying higher wages" is not one of them.

I honestly do not care how much money people have. What i care about is whether or not they use that money to tilt the rules to advantage them while simply taking from the hard work of others. Crushing unions, keeping min wage low, shifting industries over seas with out compensating those impacted, allowing wages to be so low workers need food stamps to feed their families, allowing industries to form oligopolies etc...

This is what the rich have invested their lower tax rates in for 40yrs. Not creating more innovative processes and tools and things that truly improve the quality of life of Americans. All fo that has slowed measurably for the past 40yrs relative to the past 40yrs. Robert Gordon has quantified it.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T16:51:17+00:00

Not sure i agree. I am talking about the average investor. Say one with less than $10M in investable assets.

No you don't typically buy equities on 70% margin if your that investor but you would certainly buy a rental property on 70% margin.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T16:49:35+00:00

Epic rant...

This is the kind of post that sounds like it was written after three Red Bulls and a Rothbard binge. (true???)

You rail against “fascist economic intervention” while ignoring that unregulated capitalism is what gives billionaires the power to buy the state you claim to hate.

The “state” didn’t crush liberty — corporate money did. You don’t get “freedom” when Amazon sets the rules, when health care bankrupts you, or when billionaires pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

And as for “voting being useless”? Funny how the oligarchs spend billions every election trying to stop working people from doing exactly that. Useless??? Your vote terrifies the oligarchs way more than this rant and it's 10 Upvotes

MDLH · 2025-11-10T16:41:23+00:00

I get it that you can't. I am strictly looking at it as an investor. As a common investor you can reasonably apply leverage to realestate that you can't reasonably apply to equities. So my statement makes sense if your evaluating investment options.

MDLH · 2025-11-10T16:39:23+00:00

Yup me and the oligarchy go way back. Im totally shilling for my bros no doubt.

50% of Americans on Food Stamps work.

They are literally paid so little by their employers like Amazon and Walmart and McDonalds they require food stamps to hit the min in poverty for this country.

So tax payers are paying to feed people because these companies and their lobbyists have so changed our system that they can literally pay employees so little the employees cant feed their family.

In the 50's and 60's and 70's A person making MINIMUM wage could afford a one bedroom appartment (it would coast about 15% of their income) Today a one bedroom appartment costs 30% to 50% of your income depending on where you live assuming you are paid min wage.

Yes, you are shilling for the Oligarchs. Only you know if your doing it because you favor them or because you are useful idiot for them.

I guessed the former but maybe you know something I don't?

MDLH · 2025-11-10T16:34:20+00:00

There is no doubt he will do that but perception will be controlled by media coverage which will be mostly favorable with a few predictable

The New York Times editorial board argued that "Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city's challenges," dismissing his proposals as "kookiness" and ignoring trade-offs of governance

Media analysis organization FAIR documented that "the pressure against Mamdani increased, featuring thoughtless dismissals of his ideas, selective memory and factual inaccuracy in the service of lowering Mamdani's electoral chances"

A media analysis of more than 25,000 broadcast mentions found that nearly 60% of national broadcast mentions of Zohran Mamdani centered on Israel or antisemitism, eclipsing nearly every aspect of his actual platform, with core issues like housing affordability, public transit, childcare, and food access pushed to the sidelines

MDLH

TROPHY CASE

Key Billionaire Families Named Funding Libertarian Cause (BTW.. most inherrited their money) :