The Drivel of Paul Kurtz

[Capleton]

I remember once that I considered myself to be a Secular Humanist or rather I used to claim to be one because I thought it was a respectable atheistic philosophy. Now I can hardly stand to read the writings of Secular Humanists (most not all) because they tend to advocate the egalitarianism, support the U.N. and a host of other noxious and unjust ideals. Here is just a sample of the mess I detests from the foremost Humanist philosopher:

The Free Market with a Human Face

Editorial

Speaking Personally

by Paul Kurtz

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_24_2.htm

Comments?

[Capitalism Forever]

the predominant influence on America today is a militant minority committed to what might be called "Evangelical Capitalism."

Evangelical Capitalists' devotion to economic liberty is so extreme that it seemingly precludes any concern for the common good.

the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, does not have a universal system of health coverage.

it rewards private health- maintenance organizations, encouraging them to enter this arena, perhaps one day to supplant government-run Medicare.

corporate profits today in industry after industry are breaking all records.

as the nation's piety increases, its compassionate concern for those most in need tends to decrease. European democracies are much more secular than the United States and equally committed to freemarket economics

America at present cannot and will not pursue social justice-because it is committed to the dogmas of Evangelical Capitalism.

LOL If you only look at certain portions of the text, it might be considered an example of romanticism! Kind of like reading about how the United States unwaveringly supports Israel...

[JohnGalt]

And they disregard countless unmet social needs: environmental protection; crumbling national rail and metropolitan transit systems; declining inner cities; the demutualization of life insurance companies for the benefit of stockholders but to the detriment of policyholders; the loss of retirement funds by employees working for bankrupt companies; a static minimum wage; and the disgraceful fact that 42 million Americans have no medical health insurance. ...Here a basic humanistic principle is at stake: the conviction that health care is a human right and that each person is entitled to some coverage.

Context dropping... At whose expense are these "social needs" to be met? Environmental protection has a cost. Rebuilding infrastructure has a cost. Rebuilding cities requires capital and manpower, in addition to cultural adjustments. Who is going to force these changes upon whom else? Despite people's best efforts, and sometimes their not-so-best efforts, companies go bankrupt. Upon whom is it incumbent to reimburse those that lose their retirement savings? What about the fact that those people were so careless as to bet their entire retirement savings on a single company? Why should we create an ever higher barrier to entry into the labor market, which is what the minimum wage is? And above all: what is the basis for the assertion that health insurance, of all things, is a basic human right? Who should be made to provide it for those who don't have it. Kurtz doesn't say how all this should be done. The implied answer then is, "Somehow." "Somehow" always means "someone."

What he's talking about is precisely the opposite of a free market: a market where "the people," i.e. the government, are free to do as they please and take what they please whenever, wherever and from whomever should suit them.

I actually like the term "Evangelical Capitalist," though not in the sense that Kurtz uses it. I think capitalism needs a few more evangelists. I'm envisioning angels with glowing dollar signs over their heads instead of halos.