Can someone be a ____ and still a Christian?

[BondiHarry]

The Outlander, I once did a study on what God calls for government (kings and princes) to do and was surprised to find out that He gives government little authority to do anything ... certainly no authority to help those in need or do charitable work. Kings and princes are called to be righteous themselves, ensure justice is done, to be sober themselves but that is about it.

It strikes me as odd that libertarian is more darwinian in terms of thinking, and socialism is more pan-humanist. If I were a Christian (and otherwise) I would certainly be happy to pay tax for welfare

Libertarian is darwinian in terms of thinking? I think just the opposite is true. In libertarian thought it is immoral to initiate the use of force or fraud and Darwinism teaches survival of the fittest which is kind of hard to do when you can't initiate the use of force.

The problem with socialism is you always run out of other peoples money.

 

[TheOutlander]

The Outlander, I once did a study on what God calls for government (kings and princes) to do and was surprised to find out that He gives government little authority to do anything ... certainly no authority to help those in need or do charitable work. Kings and princes are called to be righteous themselves, ensure justice is done, to be sober themselves but that is about it.



Libertarian is darwinian in terms of thinking? I think just the opposite is true. In libertarian thought it is immoral to initiate the use of force or fraud and Darwinism teaches survival of the fittest which is kind of hard to do when you can't initiate the use of force.

The problem with socialism is you always run out of other peoples money.

The first point is valid in some respects, I mean, the bible does clearly set down laws for society etc, and whether nor not you or I support those is another argument. To ensure justice is done, surely one should help the poor, I see no distinction between helping the poor and being righteous. If as you say, God gives the government no authority, does that mean we should all ignore the government? Government can be good as well as bad, governments can topple dictators (or establish them), so to say that the government has no authority is to ignore reality. Yes, God may have a grand plan, but he also taught people to respect positions of authority on earth (to an extreme point in my opinion).

Just because it isn't mentioned in the bible, does that mean we should do nothing about it, the bible doesn't have instructions on new medicines (because it isn't a medical health book, admittedly), does that mean we should ignore new medical discoveries? It doesn't mention particle physics, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean we ignore it. God may call for certain things, but does the fact he's silent on the issue (although the bible does have slightly monarchist undertones at sections) mean we should ignore a topic?

As for Libertarianism, yes, like marxism, in an ideal world it would work perfectly (i.e in Marxism everyone would ideally be truly equal and rewarded on the basis of their own achievements in very much the same way).

Libertarianism is based on the idea people should have economic freedom and not be taxed (or minimalistic tax), as a result, a number of entrepreneurs rise up based on their own good ideas. They employ people and everything is fine for a while (excluding the fact that with minimalistic government, they are not accountable for what they do with their money). The government says; 'we won't tax you, but you should give money to charity and help support the needy'. Now, in response, approximately 70% of the people stick their finger up, don't give to charity (as the bible says all humans are fundamentally evil) and continue on with their lives.

Without government support, people are either stuck in one of two categories; the entrepreneurs who make all the money or the larger class of workers, who survive on whatever the entrepreneurs dish out.

An Economic crisis comes, the government has no money to act and so the entrepreneurs bail the country out, buying up what's left of public services, the crisis also means unemployment but as the government has not been taxing people, it's left to the discretion of the economy, which is ruthless.

Capitalist, sadly, does not take into account people's feelings or social issues, it is a raw drive for commerce, capital and expansion. Those at the top exploit those at the bottom (The company I work for, for example, sees approximately 2000 pounds per employee coming in each week, it's doing extraordinarily well, but I'd be lucky to see 200 of that), Libertarianism is how aristocracy arises, people inherit businesses which become so powerful and competitive, they destroy smaller business.

I refuse to see how the survival of the person best suited to dealing with the economic climate is different to the survival of the animal best suited to dealing with the physical climate? Why use force? If people are in an area where one entrepreneur owns all the business and is not accountable to government, what can they do? It's a case of working for them or not working at all.

 

[BondiHarry]

The first point is valid in some respects, I mean, the bible does clearly set down laws for society etc, and whether nor not you or I support those is another argument. To ensure justice is done, surely one should help the poor, I see no distinction between helping the poor and being righteous. If as you say, God gives the government no authority, does that mean we should all ignore the government? Government can be good as well as bad, governments can topple dictators (or establish them), so to say that the government has no authority is to ignore reality. Yes, God may have a grand plan, but he also taught people to respect positions of authority on earth (to an extreme point in my opinion).

Just because it isn't mentioned in the bible, does that mean we should do nothing about it, the bible doesn't have instructions on new medicines (because it isn't a medical health book, admittedly), does that mean we should ignore new medical discoveries? It doesn't mention particle physics, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean we ignore it. God may call for certain things, but does the fact he's silent on the issue (although the bible does have slightly monarchist undertones at sections) mean we should ignore a topic?

As for Libertarianism, yes, like marxism, in an ideal world it would work perfectly (i.e in Marxism everyone would ideally be truly equal and rewarded on the basis of their own achievements in very much the same way).

Libertarianism is based on the idea people should have economic freedom and not be taxed (or minimalistic tax), as a result, a number of entrepreneurs rise up based on their own good ideas. They employ people and everything is fine for a while (excluding the fact that with minimalistic government, they are not accountable for what they do with their money). The government says; 'we won't tax you, but you should give money to charity and help support the needy'. Now, in response, approximately 70% of the people stick their finger up, don't give to charity (as the bible says all humans are fundamentally evil) and continue on with their lives.

Without government support, people are either stuck in one of two categories; the entrepreneurs who make all the money or the larger class of workers, who survive on whatever the entrepreneurs dish out.

An Economic crisis comes, the government has no money to act and so the entrepreneurs bail the country out, buying up what's left of public services, the crisis also means unemployment but as the government has not been taxing people, it's left to the discretion of the economy, which is ruthless.

Capitalist, sadly, does not take into account people's feelings or social issues, it is a raw drive for commerce, capital and expansion. Those at the top exploit those at the bottom (The company I work for, for example, sees approximately 2000 pounds per employee coming in each week, it's doing extraordinarily well, but I'd be lucky to see 200 of that), Libertarianism is how aristocracy arises, people inherit businesses which become so powerful and competitive, they destroy smaller business.

I refuse to see how the survival of the person best suited to dealing with the economic climate is different to the survival of the animal best suited to dealing with the physical climate? Why use force? If people are in an area where one entrepreneur owns all the business and is not accountable to government, what can they do? It's a case of working for them or not working at all.

No system will work all that well when people are not motivated by God but by other things. Capitalism has served fallen man reasonably well when free markets are allowed to be free but that really has never been the case although the United States has been the one nation to most nearly give it a go.

Free markets do not allow the scenario you presented in your last paragraph to actually endure (people can and do try but they cannot succeed when government cannot protect them from the compensating reaction in a free market). Greedy people can try to manipulate the market but without the protection of government they cannot succeed for long. Competitors will always enter the market (unless prohibited to do so by govenment) whenever an established interest lets the quality of their products or services slip, raise their prices to a level higher than the market will support or reduce the compensation they pay their employess below what the market will support. So many of the evils that are laid at the feet of capitalism actually occur only when the government intervenes and distorts the market.

The solution is not to make government the regulator but to have God as the regulator. The Holy Spirit filled entrepeneur has motivations for starting and operating a business independent of simply making money (and what a lot of people refuse to believe is that trade between people can actually be done to the benefit of all parties concerned ... their belief that if one party benefits in a transaction it must be at the expense of the other party is nonsense).

But I do understand your point. I quit a job I had held for over 11 years because those running the company decided they could make more profit by cutting the compensation they paid employees so where I made over $500/month commission in one area of sales under the old compensation format, under the new one for the same production from me they paid me less than a dollar. That company used to be at the very top in its field but has slipped significantly because in its quest to make a profit it let customer service slip dramatically, has alienated and lost many quality employees including managers (some of the best lower level managers we had left because of the abuse they received and being passed over for much deserved promotions) and its customers are going to competitors who understand the importance of providing excellent customer service. The free market does a vastly superior job of correcting market abuses than government could ever do.

 

[Disippelen]

Yes of course. Although I would say that communism and fascism as we know these ideologies are not likely to be very compatible with Christian ideas. When it comes to socialism, there are many kinds of it throughout the world, and the basic ideas of this ideology are not hostile to Christianity. Capitalism and liberalism are also just human ideas, and so they are not necessarily "more Christian" than socialism.

Historically, Christian groups (mostly those outside of the state churches) were some of the most significant reformers and engineers of a modern society where social justice, welfare and education were offered to everybody. The first labor unions were also highly influenced by Christian laymen. Unfortunately, following the Russian revolution of 1917, aggressive Atheists came into power in many of the socialist groups, and the Christian elements were pushed out. The world could see the results of this non-Christian socialism and communism during the terror reigns of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (et al).

A socialist ideology with a Christian emphasis should, however, not be viewed as un-Christian or dangerous. Personally though, I sympathize with moderates and conservatives (although some socialist ideas should be kept alive, such as universal welfare in the form of health care and free education).