Which of these two countries is more liveable?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I view unchecked capitalism as less malevolent than unchecked religion.

I understand (although obviously don't agree with) your reasons for thinking this in general and certainly understand your reasons for applying it in this particular instance, but would you concede that it does depend at least a little on what religion it is?

[DemPGH]

I view unchecked capitalism as less malevolent than unchecked religion.

How come?

The short answer is the history of the Church and really the major religions, although both of these hypothetical societies are admittedly disasters. I also think it's very stifling to have to conform one's mind and outlook to what is written in religious texts and books. But as far as Christianity goes, which is what the OP concerns, that was a straight-up horror show for centuries.

Religion is based on things that people cannot possibly know - the mind of God, things to come, etc., which is why schools of thought and branch-off religions start, and it's why there are so many religions in the world. Then the schools disagree with each other and when they get control of government they start persecuting each other - typically over minutia. Or minimally they quarrel continuously over things they cannot possibly know, and I just tend to view that as wasteful.

I view unchecked capitalism as less malevolent than unchecked religion.

I understand (although obviously don't agree with) your reasons for thinking this in general and certainly understand your reasons for applying it in this particular instance, but would you concede that it does depend at least a little on what religion it is?

A lot of my reply to Politicus applies here too. I'd also like to point out, Nathan, and I absolutely mean this as a compliment, that you and folks like Scott do not, in my experience, represent the whole of religious thinking. I think you guys, for instance, are much more open-minded and willing to search and reflect than is the vast majority.

To answer, it's possible that I could tolerate some sort of mystical kind of religion as a "state religion" (which pains me to say!) that is very limited on dogma and grand pronouncements. Something like numerology or astrology - although I'd think it was rubbish, I could probably tolerate it if minimal participation was required. But as I said, if it's "this many holy orders vs. that many, and God meant this when he said that - well no, he actually meant something else"-- that I could not tolerate.

[politicus]

I view unchecked capitalism as less malevolent than unchecked religion.

How come?

The short answer is the history of the Church and really the major religions, although both of these hypothetical societies are admittedly disasters. I also think it's very stifling to have to conform one's mind and outlook to what is written in religious texts and books. But as far as Christianity goes, which is what the OP concerns, that was a straight-up horror show for centuries.

Religion is based on things that people cannot possibly know - the mind of God, things to come, etc., which is why schools of thought and branch-off religions start, and it's why there are so many religions in the world. Then the schools disagree with each other and when they get control of government they start persecuting each other - typically over minutia. Or minimally they quarrel continuously over things they cannot possibly know, and I just tend to view that as wasteful.

Well, I had no trouble guessing why you didnt like religion, I was just curious as to why you would think that 100% unchecked Ayn Rand style capitalism wouldnt be even worse. So it was more: Why is the Ayn Rand style society less horrible?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Jesusland would be a socially backwards country full of narrow-minded, intolerant people, and no doubt that many will suffer under it. But most would get by, and though their lives would be dull and oppressing, they would be livable.

Anyrandland, on the other hand, perfectly fits the description of hell. No such society could possibly remain sustainable more than a few decades. It would either collapse under a massive revolution or just self-annihilate. Anyone who chooses it has his values seriously f**ked up.

mhmmm... people who don't want to live in a place where their sexual orientation is outlawed "have f**ked up values"...

[Foucaulf]

Being a gay leftist, for me the only option is suicide.

(If I had to rank priorities, it would mean I choose the latter nation. Spare me the moralizing.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I view unchecked capitalism as less malevolent than unchecked religion.

How come?

The short answer is the history of the Church and really the major religions, although both of these hypothetical societies are admittedly disasters. I also think it's very stifling to have to conform one's mind and outlook to what is written in religious texts and books. But as far as Christianity goes, which is what the OP concerns, that was a straight-up horror show for centuries.

Religion is based on things that people cannot possibly know - the mind of God, things to come, etc., which is why schools of thought and branch-off religions start, and it's why there are so many religions in the world. Then the schools disagree with each other and when they get control of government they start persecuting each other - typically over minutia. Or minimally they quarrel continuously over things they cannot possibly know, and I just tend to view that as wasteful.

Well, I had no trouble guessing why you didnt like religion, I was just curious as to why you would think that 100% unchecked Ayn Rand style capitalism wouldnt be even worse. So it was more: Why is the Ayn Rand style society less horrible?

What I was asking was also more of an 'Are you willing to concede that there are religions that even in their 'unchecked' form are less bad than Objectivism?'-type question, rather than 'Are there any possible theocracies you'd actually want to live in?'

I do take your compliment as given, though. Thank you.

[traininthedistance]

Catholic Jesusland > Aynrandland > Evangelical Jesusland

Catholic Jesusland would presumably be against the death penalty and accepting of evolution, whereas Evangelical Jesusland would likely not have even those minor civilizing influences.  I also wonder how theocracies based on other religions would stack up on this metric.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Unfettered ignorance vs. unfettered greed... goodness, these are both awful. 

That said, religion is the ultimate endgame of evil in my view, so I would have to go to AynRandLand.  I personally don't have any intense dislike for Ayn Rand and her way of viewing things.  It's wacky but at least it's an ATTEMPT at an ideal society.  Also, as liberal as I am... a "rich, welfare state" is not my preferred economic system. 

In either state you are enslaved... so I'm not sure where free will comes into this... but at least in AynRandLand you still have your mind.  In two dystopian hellholes like you've described... I at the very least want my mind. 

[DemPGH]

What I was asking was also more of an 'Are you willing to concede that there are religions that even in their 'unchecked' form are less bad than Objectivism?'-type question, rather than 'Are there any possible theocracies you'd actually want to live in?'

I do take your compliment as given, though. Thank you.

Oh. I see. Well, Objectivism (and we are admittedly probably more in your philosophical domain here than mine) seems to me to be an everyday rational, physical, tangible approach to life - you worry about what you can control and what's in front of you. You have maximum freedom, you take charge of your life. But of course there are still laws, so it kind of sounds like something closer to our current system than many might recognize. Which I would take over any religion that I know of.

Rand I do know was chiefly anti-authoritarian whereas religions seem to be at least morally authoritarian, so I would assume that in an Objectivist society I would be left alone by clergy and their opinions about what I should do to please their deity. In that sense I like Objectivism best, if I've characterized it properly.

Well, I had no trouble guessing why you didnt like religion, I was just curious as to why you would think that 100% unchecked Ayn Rand style capitalism wouldnt be even worse. So it was more: Why is the Ayn Rand style society less horrible?

I couldn't live under somebody's thumb, being judged, evaluated as to how well I don't offend God or the "sacred truths" or whatever nonsense the bishops dreamed up, to be honest with you.

I also think Rand's philosophy, what I know about it, has been dumbed down a bit. For example, I don't know how anti-labor she would be. I would think she would support anyone's voice being heard as long as they were lawful and the government stayed out of it. Remember the context in which she was writing.

However it may be, Rand's philosophy supports maximum personal freedom, and if forced to choose I would take that over a theocracy - in which the only freedoms are those allowed by the powers that be and one has everything provided so long as he or she kisses the pope's ring. And I would not do that for security.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The only right answer is America. While I'm uncomfortable with completely unchecked economic and social activity, Jesusland sounds like some place where you'd be hypnotized into living a dull, slave-like life. As much as we all love Jesus, His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

[angus]

His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

and if he hadn't resurrected, he'd probably be rolling over in his grave at the prospect of his name being co-opted to describe such a horrible place.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The only right answer is America. While I'm uncomfortable with completely unchecked economic and social activity, Jesusland sounds like some place where you'd be hypnotized into living a dull, slave-like life. As much as we all love Jesus, His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

I don't love Jesus!  Some of his rhetoric is downright scary.  You know who the ultimate nice guy figure in history was?

Carl Sagan.

[John Dibble]

Jesusland would be a socially backwards country full of narrow-minded, intolerant people, and no doubt that many will suffer under it. But most would get by, and though their lives would be dull and oppressing, they would be livable.

Anyrandland, on the other hand, perfectly fits the description of hell. No such society could possibly remain sustainable more than a few decades. It would either collapse under a massive revolution or just self-annihilate. Anyone who chooses it has his values seriously f**ked up.

mhmmm... people who don't want to live in a place where their sexual orientation is outlawed "have f**ked up values"...

Let's not forget their treatment of women - many women wouldn't want to live in such a place. It's a feminist's nightmare.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jesusland would be a socially backwards country full of narrow-minded, intolerant people, and no doubt that many will suffer under it. But most would get by, and though their lives would be dull and oppressing, they would be livable.

Anyrandland, on the other hand, perfectly fits the description of hell. No such society could possibly remain sustainable more than a few decades. It would either collapse under a massive revolution or just self-annihilate. Anyone who chooses it has his values seriously f**ked up.

mhmmm... people who don't want to live in a place where their sexual orientation is outlawed "have f**ked up values"...

Let's not forget their treatment of women - many women wouldn't want to live in such a place. It's a feminist's nightmare.

Would the gays and women of the immense anyrandlandian underclass be much better off? I admit that I can't really judge, but I assume I'd rather be forced to hide my sexuality or be confined to domestic life than starving or dying from polluted air/water.

[politicus]

Jesusland would be a socially backwards country full of narrow-minded, intolerant people, and no doubt that many will suffer under it. But most would get by, and though their lives would be dull and oppressing, they would be livable.

Anyrandland, on the other hand, perfectly fits the description of hell. No such society could possibly remain sustainable more than a few decades. It would either collapse under a massive revolution or just self-annihilate. Anyone who chooses it has his values seriously f**ked up.

mhmmm... people who don't want to live in a place where their sexual orientation is outlawed "have f**ked up values"...

Let's not forget their treatment of women - many women wouldn't want to live in such a place. It's a feminist's nightmare.

Would the gays and women of the immense anyrandlandian underclass be much better off? I admit that I can't really judge, but I assume I'd rather be forced to hide my sexuality or be confined to domestic life than starving or dying from polluted air/water.

Yes, I think those choosing the unchecked capitalism underestimate how extreme a "corporate dictatorship" would be both regarding the environment and the living conditions for regular folks.

It wouldn't just be present US +20% or something like that. No modern Western society comes even close to such a model.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The only right answer is America. While I'm uncomfortable with completely unchecked economic and social activity, Jesusland sounds like some place where you'd be hypnotized into living a dull, slave-like life. As much as we all love Jesus, His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

I don't love Jesus!  Some of his rhetoric is downright scary.  You know who the ultimate nice guy figure in history was?

Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan was a very nice guy, but not all of the world's problems can be solved by niceness. (Admittedly, many can.)

[Donerail]

His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

It isn't really, no.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The only right answer is America. While I'm uncomfortable with completely unchecked economic and social activity, Jesusland sounds like some place where you'd be hypnotized into living a dull, slave-like life. As much as we all love Jesus, His amusement park doesn't sound that fun.

I don't love Jesus!  Some of his rhetoric is downright scary.  You know who the ultimate nice guy figure in history was?

Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan was a very nice guy, but not all of the world's problems can be solved by niceness. (Admittedly, many can.)

Niceness alone, no.  Niceness + humility + knowledge?  Most definitely. 

[DC Al Fine]

The very notion that most of humanity's problems can be solved is a silly one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The very notion that most of humanity's problems can be solved is a silly one.

This is probably one of the most genuinely conservative statement ever made. In fact, this pessimistic belief could be said to be the funding principle of conservative thought. While I radically disagree with your view, I have to applaud its clarity and consistency, something which is very rare among modern American "conservatives".

[dead0man]

The very notion that most of humanity's problems can be solved is a silly one.

Oh, they are solvable, it would just take a LOT of blood and coin to do it (and a lot of people would have to die) and the people with the ability to do it totally lack the will (and would argue about what specifically needed to be done).

[Хahar 🤔]

Assuming that minority religions were tolerated, certainly Jesusland.

Catholic Jesusland > Aynrandland > Evangelical Jesusland

Catholic Jesusland would presumably be against the death penalty and accepting of evolution, whereas Evangelical Jesusland would likely not have even those minor civilizing influences.  I also wonder how theocracies based on other religions would stack up on this metric.

This is an interesting point. My own religious views bear much more relation to Protestantism than to Catholicism, but I suspect that an absolutist Catholic state would be a rather more pleasant place to live.

[DC Al Fine]

Assuming that minority religions were tolerated, certainly Jesusland.

Catholic Jesusland > Aynrandland > Evangelical Jesusland

Catholic Jesusland would presumably be against the death penalty and accepting of evolution, whereas Evangelical Jesusland would likely not have even those minor civilizing influences.  I also wonder how theocracies based on other religions would stack up on this metric.

This is an interesting point. My own religious views bear much more relation to Protestantism than to Catholicism, but I suspect that an absolutist Catholic state would be a rather more pleasant place to live.

Given the case facts that the OP gave for Jesusland, I think it would pretty much have to be a Catholic state. Which is fine by me. I suspect the Catholic church would give my sect much more freedom than the evangelicals would.

[windjammer]

Jesusland. Communautarianism (or statism) is "better" than Libertarianism (or anarchism) according to me

[Indy Texas]

I would think there would be rampant selection bias here.

It's not an issue for the hypothetical middle class person, but a poor person would almost certainly self-select out of Aynrandland and into Jesusland.

Ironically, Aynrandland would actually be a pretty nice place to live for everyone else. Poor people would be virtually non-existent because they wouldn't want to live there and might not be able to afford to anyway. I would imagine Aynrandland being in practice something like Hong Kong or Singapore.

Jesusland would almost certainly fail. Educated, entrepreneurial people wouldn't want to live there. The only way it would sustain itself is if it were situated in an area rich in natural resources.