Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Satt]

Other: either benevolent dictatorship...or...complete anarchy.

 

[Algol Omega]

Other: either benevolent dictatorship...or...complete anarchy.

If by anarchy, you mean anarchy, then I can play along.

On the other hand, I'm revolting against a benevolent dictatorship. Viva la revolutiono!

 

[farpadokly]

The inherent ideologies behind socialism are good, but as with all ideologies they usually get really perverted

And while most of the ideaologies behind socialism are good, why should a person that has worked their butt off to get ahead only be allowed the same level of living as someone that sits at home on a benefit

Socialism implies not only that everyone should have a comparable standard of living, but that everyone should do their fair share of the necessary work (which is different from the capitalist notion of employment for wages). Socialism has nothing to do with state benefits. That's "social democracy". Hard work does not equal wealth necessarily. Some of the hardest working people in the world are, and will remain, poor.

 

[farpadokly]

Socialism means "the means of production" controlled by the state OR by the workers, the producers. It need not imply state control, there is such a thing as stateless socialism. There's also a book, i remember, called "Catholic socialism". (I'm a lapsed Catholic btw).

 

[farpadokly]

I'm not really sure what the point of this poll is. There are a hundred types of capitalist and a hundred types of socialism.

Not really. Capitalism: a system with the private ownership of capital and the means of production.
Socialism: state or worker control of the means of production.
Just the two types. There are other systems which may incorporate elements of socialism or capitalism, but that's a different question.

 

[farpadokly]

capitalist because it allows people to have the greatest amount of personal freedom. I disagree with the previous statements that the Bible supports socialism. The ideas of socialism are great. Equality. Everyone helping everyone. It would be nice, I must confess, but the reality of it is far different than the philosophy behind it. In Galatians
6:4-5 "But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another, For every man shall bear his own burden."

The aforementioned passages from Acts cannot readily be applied as socialism because they were in no way setting up a government which would rule over people-they were communing together to form the church. This was voluntary in which people gave what they felt led to give and did so to help build God's kingdom-not a government institution of man. Another passage which could be construed as supporting socialism is Gal 6:2 which says "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ," but if you look at it in the context of Gal 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted," it is clear that they are speaking of building and holding one another up willingly in the spirit of meekness-not building one another up as economic or social equals. It doesn't say give the man half of your things, it says more or less to put yourselves into the shoes of the unfortunate and do what you can do to help them in a humble fashion.

The Bible is a guide to how to live as a good person and I really don't think It endorses any socio-economic system over another, but the Word does teach us to help one another, not to force others to help, to willing lighten one another's burdens out of love, and that we should not HAVE to bear the burdens of those who are unwilling to carry their own load. Forcing the worker to carry the load of the beggar is in no way a Christian ideal and I'll eat my hat if it can be proven Biblical-so I have to say no to Socialism which does just that.

Like most Americans you have a strange idea of what socialism means. It does not imply that money is taken from one group of people and given to another. It implies a classless society and one without a money system, and one in which everyone does their share of the necessary work.
That's in contrast to a capitalist system which rests on the exploitation of people's labour, which wealth and profits proceed from. Socialism in its finished form would be classless and there would be no government. So the bible verses you quoted might just as well support socialism, as pointing to the immorality of the idle rich who are supported by other people's labour.
I do agree though that Christianity is politically neutral, as is shown by the existence of Christian socialism and "the Christian right". It's all a matter of exegesis.

 

[TheReasoner]

Please, the United States is stingy on a per-Capita basis? That's your only argument. Maybe most people don't want to donate to foreign aid because we have realized how corrupt the system is.

Perhaps a lot of us don't believe the world is worth the time or money we can give, and so far - those of us, like myself, that don't believe in interfering with the rest of the world, haven't been wrong one bit. Every single time we try to 'aid' someone, there's always someone complaining about us not giving enough despite the fact they can't give for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], always someone talking about how the United States is the big bad wolf despite the fact that they're the ones murdering and raping women and children, and those people we aid, turn into just a bunch of terrorists at the end of the day.

So you want to call America, stingy? Go ahead. Just know that at the end of the day, no one has any right to talk about any other country donating, when just a portion of our population is donating more than every other country combined.

"Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else." - Ayn Rand

So, your argument is that as you give more money TOTAL that means you can be as stingy as you wish? My oh my, talk about self-righteous!

Your argument is that if a group of 100 people give 500 dollars to a cause this is more laudable than if one person gives a hundred dollars. Rather twisted. You cannot claim that the US is the most generous of all nations when as a percentage of GNP you are far from meeting that claim, and when you look at your donations per capita you're even farther from it. The claim is nonsensical and highly pretentious. Saying that you give more money than anyone else is quite right. But even that is not the whole truth algol omega. Most of the money you do give is tied into American business, effectively meaning you give to yourselves, not to the people you 'aid'. In my eyes this makes what aid you DO give is highly hypocritical!

As for your denial fo anyone's rights to comment on another nation's donations you forfeited that when you yourself commented on your own donations relative to those of other nations not only in the post which I originally replied to but even in the one I am replying to now. If you yourself compares your nation to other nations you had better suck it up when someone else does so as well, and reveals a place where you made a (possibly honest) mistake. Anything else is hypocritical and not something a real man would do.

You made the claim that the USA is the most generous nation. I called you on that, and your defense is to cry foul and use logical fallacies to try to rationalize and defend your initial and demonstrably false claim? How is that respectable or mature? Humbug, I say!
You have shown many significant character flaws in your posts and I have no respect for you as a result. Hold opinions, whatever opinions you may find you wish to hold. But at least show some respect, logical consistency and integrity. I did originally not attack you, I only showed you that your claim is not as solid as you seem to think. As a response you did not behave as a mature man should. Shame on you!

 

[BrianMaximus]

If I had to choice which one Christ would choose. I wouldn't pick either, because he wouldn't be so arrogant to think that it mattered.

If I had to choose for myself. Neither because neither have really worked out too well. If anything a balance between them should be found, and equilibrium if you will. Banks should not be capitalism, they have too much to gain from the misfortune from others. However, they should also not be socialism because too many people controlling it will cause it's collapse. Banks should also not be centralized, it causes the infrastructure to be weak and more easily collapsible. For the main economy, Luxury items can be captilism while staple items, the items needed for living socialist, however, NOT government run and not centralized. That's right I said it. The reason most governments struggle is because they govern too large a group, these people are never going to have the same thoughts on what will be better for each other, which is why government should also not be centralized.

 

[Wanda Lee]

Socialism depends on the government not on God. Capitalism can depend on man but it is also open to depend on God.

The new book "Bonhoffer" is a great read. I would you encourage you to read it FluffyRabbitHunter.

I have served the poor for many years - believe me, Socialism is not going to help the poor. Ask anyone who came out of Eastern Europe during Communism.

The church is not doing all it could do for the poor. Let us challenge the church to awake - not push the government. When we turn to the government we turn away from God.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus told us the poor would always be with us? Ponder that - . I do believe that if we do not have a care for the poor then we are in spiritual trouble.

 

[TheReasoner]

Socialism depends on the government not on God. Capitalism can depend on man but it is also open to depend on God.

I disagree. I find that capitalism is anti-christian in it's underlying social-darwinistic tendencies. Socialism as an ideology I find no such flaw in as it is about pulling together, about cooperation as opposed to competition. Comminitarian thought, not selfish. Americans have a problem here. They think far too much about how things can benefit THEM, and oh so little about how they can contribute to something which benefits everyone. This is a case in point. Instead of seeing that socialism as an ideology aims to create a collectively responsible and cooperative society you say it makes individuals shove their cares and worries onto the government. Not onto one another as is part of it's most central core, but an entity you traditionally distrust.
I wonder at this, why do Americans so often seek to rationalize their own opposition to shared responsibilities and collective cooperation by labeling such "governmental" and using fallacious claims like "look to Soviet". That's completely bonkers. It's no different from saying "capitalism is terrible, look to Adolf Hitler."

I have served the poor for many years - believe me, Socialism is not going to help the poor. Ask anyone who came out of Eastern Europe during Communism.

Fallacious claim. The totalitarian communism of eastern europe is not synonymous with socialism. ONe could just as easily say "believe me, Socialism is definitely going to help the poor. Just look to the history of Scandinavia"

The church is not doing all it could do for the poor. Let us challenge the church to awake - not push the government. When we turn to the government we turn away from God.

And why are the two opposites according to you? Why should we only help communally through one gateway and not another? Church help is good, but if you look at the numbers socialist democracies in the west give more per capita, publically and privately, than does the conservative capitalist countries wherein - particularly in the US' case - people readily praise their own charitability.
Why do you think that if we turn to a communitarian mindset we turn away from God? The first Christians were communists by definition. (No, not stalinists, marxists or maoists; communists)

Have you ever wondered why Jesus told us the poor would always be with us? Ponder that - . I do believe that if we do not have a care for the poor then we are in spiritual trouble.

We also know not everyone will be saved. But should that stop us from spreading the gospel?
We will not defeat poverty. But we should not stop trying.

 

[Wanda Lee]

I agree that we should work to serve the poor - my life has largely been dedicated to that end.

Serving the poor is not as simple as transferring money from one person to another. That often times hurts much more than it helps. As I have served in the inner cities of America I have seen that happen over and over again. People doing what is comfortable for them rather than what those they serve truly need.

Our emphasis should not be on ending poverty - to do so we say that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. However, we still must do all we can to walk through life with individuals who are in need. We must look at individuals and see what their REAL needs are. Sometimes that means being willing to walk through suffering with them as they learn that they must do more than just take.

Those social democracies in the west are going bankrupt - it is not working. Or maybe you don't get the same news in Norway that we get in America

Sweden is often set up as an idea socialist society (All my grandparents came from Sweden) - but it is also known for being one of the least spiritual countries in the world. Some of the stories I've heard terrifies me. When my kids were in High School some friends had o pares (sp) from Sweden. They asked if these young women could spend Christmas with us since we had a "Swedish Smorgasbord." Afterwards the moms whose in whose homes these girls worked told me, "The girls told us how amazed they were at the way the teenagers respected the adults, your teens seemed to enjoy their parents." The girls had told these moms that they had no respect for their parents because all they had to do was say they would call the authorities - thus they had no respect for their parents.

To me this is a real sign of socialism - the government controlling one's entire life. Is it possible that you aren't even aware how much your life is controlled because you haven't experienced anything else?

 

[TheReasoner]

I agree that we should work to serve the poor - my life has largely been dedicated to that end.

Wonderful!

Serving the poor is not as simple as transferring money from one person to another. That often times hurts much more than it helps. As I have served in the inner cities of America I have seen that happen over and over again. People doing what is comfortable for them rather than what those they serve truly need.

True. You do realize that is not what's being done though, right? The primary avenues of aid have been and are free education and healthcare, and a securing of job rights and decent salaries.

Our emphasis should not be on ending poverty - to do so we say that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. However, we still must do all we can to walk through life with individuals who are in need. We must look at individuals and see what their REAL needs are. Sometimes that means being willing to walk through suffering with them as they learn that they must do more than just take.

Hm. Last I heard an American use those words they were followed by an explanation of how the poor have themselves to blame for their poverty. While observing an Ecuadorian slum built on an old garbage dump no less. Forgive me for asking, but is that what you are implying? That the poor need no help only a kick in the backside?

Those social democracies in the west are going bankrupt - it is not working. Or maybe you don't get the same news in Norway that we get in America

FOX News?
We do get the American channels. And my wife is Texan, so I get more than a fair bit of American news. I know the gist of the conservative news media. But I am yet to find any solid backing for their claims. I am no economist, but historically speaking there is no precedent for claiming that it will go poorly. It also seems rather... Interesting that a country with an extreme debt which even specialists from said country says cannot be paid back would criticize net creditors for a weak economy.

No, I do not see them failing. The US is suffering far more than we are, and that has been the tale every economic crisis that has emerged. It is true that some challenges have arisen, but mostly these are due to a privatization and increased adoption of capitalism. Not because of our socialistic tenets. In fact, socialism is why we are as rich as we are.

Sweden is often set up as an idea socialist society (All my grandparents came from Sweden) - but it is also known for being one of the least spiritual countries in the world. Some of the stories I've heard terrifies me. When my kids were in High School some friends had o pares (sp) from Sweden. They asked if these young women could spend Christmas with us since we had a "Swedish Smorgasbord." Afterwards the moms whose in whose homes these girls worked told me, "The girls told us how amazed they were at the way the teenagers respected the adults, your teens seemed to enjoy their parents." The girls had told these moms that they had no respect for their parents because all they had to do was say they would call the authorities - thus they had no respect for their parents.

Cultural differences will always be an issue when comparing cultures. Sweden does have a few spiritual issues, yes. Sweden is not representative of Scandinavia in that regard though. It is much less spiritual than the rest of Scandinavia. Even so, they have gotten a lot of stuff right.
It is interesting that you would bring up respect, which is as far as I can tell very important to conservatives. I do not share the love for this, especially not respect for the sake of respect. Is it not crucial to ask questions, to not blindly accept what people tell you because they are older than you?

To me this is a real sign of socialism - the government controlling one's entire life. Is it possible that you aren't even aware how much your life is controlled because you haven't experienced anything else?

Hm. Well, as I have a wife from [a very conservative part of] Texas, a childhood in South America, have lived in England as an adult and always been part of a very international community professionally and personally coupled with a very inquisitive mind and an intellect to back it (I do not mean to boast) I'd say the possibility is tiny. Of course all things are possible, but...

One important distinction is how we traditionally view our governments. This is extremely different, and I am not sure you'll be able to understand it without either an open mind coupled with living in Scandinavia for some time or an open mind coupled with a few relevant studies at university level. But to put it very simply, the government here is extremely transparent and the people have a very active say in what goes on. Not only that, but have traditionally a strong push for participation in the political scene and for the collective benefit. This is old tradition and culture. Back in the 1700s Denmark-Norway were leading the path to freedom of speech. As it stands today we have the (world's) highest freedom of the press now as well. (It took a beating with the Mohammed cartoons - still not dropping very much - but picked back up after public debates).
We have a very very long tradition of caring for one another too. For hundreds of years our politicians' goals have been - compared with other countries' politicians especially - to create a just and good society for all. We have a strong tradition of helping one another and others publicly as well as privately. Which is mirrored in the statistics. Weakened - sadly - by consumerist influences and a self-centered philosophy emerging from certain parts of society.

The thing is, saying that the government controls us is, while technically possible does not make much sense. Culturally OR historically. Not the way I read your post anyway. Are there restrictions? Sure. Taxes, primarily. To shift consumption away from certain goods and possibly onto others. High tax on alcohol and gas, low tax or even subsidies on books, music, public transportation.

Is all this to say Norway or Scandinavia are perfect? No. They have their challenges, as any country does. Is it good? Yes. In fact, as far as most quantifiable issues go you'll be very hard pressed to find a better set of nations. I encourage you to check not individual statements as they can be used to back anything from aliens visiting the earth daily to the holocaust not happening- but rather focus on hard - as objective as possible - evidence. Go through some statistics from the CIA world fact book. Look at university sites and statistics sites like nationmaster.com and gapminder.org
If you really want get a course in the recent history of a scandinavian country, and pay attention to the influences of lutheran ideals as well as the paths chosen by our respective nations. Something which gets really interesting if you look at social progress coupled with economic stability.

I'd love to respond more in depth on your claim to religious superiority, but am running out of time. To be very very brief I would suggest you look at statistics pertinent to your claim and see if they fit it.
I suggest starting by looking to the following relevant areas:
* Violence
* Sexual immorality (Rape, porn, abortions, divorces)
* Charity
* Social inequality
You will not like what you find I fear.

 

[gluadys]

I agree that we should work to serve the poor - my life has largely been dedicated to that end.

Serving the poor is not as simple as transferring money from one person to another.

That's true enough. Education, health care, public transit are effective ways to help the poor that go beyond the limitations of charitable handouts. A good job strategy (including a living wage) would be an immense help. Of course, all of these require government action.

That often times hurts much more than it helps. As I have served in the inner cities of America I have seen that happen over and over again. People doing what is comfortable for them rather than what those they serve truly need.

The biggest problem is that most people (rich as well as poor) don't have an ethic of service. Corporations want to make money out of providing service, whether it is nursing homes, day care, even prisons. One reason American health care for the poor is so shoddy is that the companies who provide it have an eye on the bottom line. So as much service as possible is denied as often as possible, when it would lower profits.

Our emphasis should not be on ending poverty - to do so we say that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about.

Jesus knew that poverty offends God. Poverty is always a symptom of uncaring rulers in the seats of power. Do you know that he was quoting Deuteronomy? Do you know the context of the quote?

The very same passage says that if Israel obeys God's covenant in regard to taking care of each other "there will be no poor among you."

Jesus was not saying that we should not end poverty. He was telling us that until we stop our disobedience to God's commands, poverty will always be with us as a witness against us. When we support the way of God's covenant through just treatment of all, we will see the end of poverty.

However, we still must do all we can to walk through life with individuals who are in need. We must look at individuals and see what their REAL needs are. Sometimes that means being willing to walk through suffering with them as they learn that they must do more than just take.

So the poor "just take"? What about the rich? Don't they take even more? Most people living in poverty have had a lot taken away from them. Land, homes, jobs: think how many jobs American businesses have shipped off to China and India. Union rights. Destruction of livelihoods (like the pollution of the Gulf of Mexico by BP shutting down fisheries). What of the huge financial crisis that cost so many people who had taken out mortgages to lose their homes? Yet when it came to providing help, billions of dollars went to the bankers who had ruined ordinary families. What went to those families?

Things like these are exactly why there will always be poor among us. When the poor are taxed to support the rich, instead of the other way around, naturally there will always be poor among us.

And, if the poor "just take" are they not just following the example of those we laud for their success?

Those social democracies in the west are going bankrupt - it is not working. Or maybe you don't get the same news in Norway that we get in America

You would do well to check the breadth and accuracy of your news sources. Do OECD statistics, for example, agree with this perception? Or is it just Fox News?

Sweden is often set up as an idea socialist society (All my grandparents came from Sweden) - but it is also known for being one of the least spiritual countries in the world. Some of the stories I've heard terrifies me. When my kids were in High School some friends had o pares (sp) from Sweden. They asked if these young women could spend Christmas with us since we had a "Swedish Smorgasbord." Afterwards the moms whose in whose homes these girls worked told me, "The girls told us how amazed they were at the way the teenagers respected the adults, your teens seemed to enjoy their parents." The girls had told these moms that they had no respect for their parents because all they had to do was say they would call the authorities - thus they had no respect for their parents.

None of which has anything to do with Sweden's financial prospects.

To me this is a real sign of socialism - the government controlling one's entire life. Is it possible that you aren't even aware how much your life is controlled because you haven't experienced anything else?

Is it any different in America? I would rather have a government that is responsible to me, a voter, making decisions that the corporate rule of big business you get under capitalism--where the role of government is to force you and me to knuckle under to the interests of bankers and CEOs. Maybe you are not aware of how much of your life is controlled by them because you haven't experienced anything else.

In fact, as an outsider, I am always amazed that America--the land that gave us the world's first true and lasting democracy--tends to view government as an enemy instead of as a servant of the people and a tool for ensuring justice for all. How much of that perception comes from corporations who control the media and determine what ideas get promoted? As long as you fear your own government, you will not attempt to use your own power through it. Who gains from keeping the people weak and helpless?

An important value of socialism is that government is (as a great American once said) by the people, of the people, for the people. You can only get that when you use the democratic power of the people through the government to dismantle the tyranny of the market-based plutocracy.

There will be no end of poverty until people demand it from their governments. It is not the poor who are the big problem, but those whose interests keep them poor.

 

[supersoldier71]

Capitalism: I was born poor, now I'm not. I own a home, several cars, and am putting my kids through college on what an enlisted Soldier earns in the US Army. Most of the folks I grew up with who are still in the same (or worse) conditions are there because of their choices, their decisions. I am better off than my parents were at this stage in their lives. Anecdotal, yes, but it's all I've got.

 

[TheReasoner]

Capitalism: I was born poor, now I'm not. I own a home, several cars, and am putting my kids through college on what an enlisted Soldier earns in the US Army. Most of the folks I grew up with who are still in the same (or worse) conditions are there because of their choices, their decisions. I am better off than my parents were at this stage in their lives. Anecdotal, yes, but it's all I've got.

Good for you!
Why shouldn't all people have access to the educational system regardless of wealth? Shouldn't that be a matter of smarts, not wealth?
It is here. Which is why my wife and I can both be students at this time.

And what of the success stories from socialistic countries? Take Kjell Inge Røkke for instance, a very rich man who started off as a poor fisherman and industrial worker and worked himself up to becoming Norway's richest man. A rise partly facilitated by socialism.
And what of all the people who without it would have fallen to healthcare issues or wages too low to live off of? Yes, there are some capitalistic success stories. But I think there on a per capita basis are significantly more in social democracies. I do believe the numbers back this up, too. Yes, in a capitalistic society you can with hard work good health and luck work yourself out of a bad situation. In socialistic countries you can do the same, often even sans the luck. I am where I am today - in a very high status and demanding master's program because I work hard and have the required intelligence. In the states I doubt I'd have a shot at the same education as I am not rich. And my parents are of the conviction that I need to stand on my own feet. A position I applaud.

My point: Hard work and determination is not a capitalistic trait. You can find it anywhere.

 

[Sphinx777]

Christian socialism generally refers to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist and who see these two philosophies as being interrelated. This category can include Liberation theology and the doctrine of the social gospel. The term "Christian Socialism" is used in this sense by organizations such as the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM).

The term also pertains to such earlier figures as the nineteenth century writers Frederick Denison Maurice (The Kingdom of Christ, 1838), Charles Kingsley (The Water-Babies, 1863), Thomas Hughes (Tom Brown's Schooldays, 1857), Frederick James Furnivall (co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary), Adin Ballou (Practical Christian Socialism, 1854), and Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister and the author of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance).



Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[supersoldier71]

Good for you!
Why shouldn't all people have access to the educational system regardless of wealth? Shouldn't that be a matter of smarts, not wealth?
It is here. Which is why my wife and I can both be students at this time.

And what of the success stories from socialistic countries? Take Kjell Inge Røkke for instance, a very rich man who started off as a poor fisherman and industrial worker and worked himself up to becoming Norway's richest man. A rise partly facilitated by socialism.
And what of all the people who without it would have fallen to healthcare issues or wages too low to live off of? Yes, there are some capitalistic success stories. But I think there on a per capita basis are significantly more in social democracies. I do believe the numbers back this up, too. Yes, in a capitalistic society you can with hard work good health and luck work yourself out of a bad situation. In socialistic countries you can do the same, often even sans the luck. I am where I am today - in a very high status and demanding master's program because I work hard and have the required intelligence. In the states I doubt I'd have a shot at the same education as I am not rich. And my parents are of the conviction that I need to stand on my own feet. A position I applaud.

My point: Hard work and determination is not a capitalistic trait. You can find it anywhere.

I agree that hard work and determination are not capitalist exclusives. My concern is that having acheived a modest level of success, the government then decides to redisribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious and determined than I. Why would I trust someone else to redistribute MY wealth? It's mine, I earned it, I use it to house, clothe, feed, educate and entertain my wife and children and I, while still contributing to my OWN retirement fund. I feel that I am a better steward for MY wealth than the best intentioned or executed of governments. And for that matter, after I've earned the money, if I wanted to (for instance) waste it on gambling and liquor: it's mine, it should be my prerogative.

I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. We in the US do not currently have that ideal, but for me, the ideal would be less control over my day to day life, including (especially) my finances.

 

[TheReasoner]

I agree that hard work and determination are not capitalist exclusives. My concern is that having acheived a modest level of success, the government then decides to redisribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious and determined than I. Why would I trust someone else to redistribute MY wealth? It's mine, I earned it, I use it to house, clothe, feed, educate and entertain my wife and children and I, while still contributing to my OWN retirement fund. I feel that I am a better steward for MY wealth than the best intentioned or executed of governments. And for that matter, after I've earned the money, if I wanted to (for instance) waste it on gambling and liquor: it's mine, it should be my prerogative.

I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. We in the US do not currently have that ideal, but for me, the ideal would be less control over my day to day life, including (especially) my finances.

Hm. Herein lies our chief disagreement I think. I wonder at your focus on yourself. I mean no offense, but this American love for individual profit over collective responsibility seems almost religious. I see no benefits for the people in this focus. What does it really benefit the individual if the collective suffers ? Are we not all part of the whole, and do we not as such hold a responsibility to one another?
I wonder, why do you think this way. Do you think there is merit in such focus on the individual? Do you think it sustainable to form a society where everyone cares for nought but themselves?

Still, perhaps it is rooted in a misunderstanding. What do you believe "redistributed wealth" entails? Many Americans I have spoken with use those words, but do not know what they mean.

 

[gluadys]

I agree that hard work and determination are not capitalist exclusives. My concern is that having acheived a modest level of success, the government then decides to redisribute my accumulated wealth to those less industrious and determined than I.

How do you or the government know who is more or less industrious and determined than you?

Why should industry and determination be a criterion for who gets good food and a good education? One is not likely to be able to express energy and determination if one does not have an adequate diet.

Why should industry and determination be a criterion for who gets good housing? Studies show that lack of stable housing begets other problems, such as mental instability, inability to get work and so on. But stable, decent housing can be a basis for working on other problems as well--like getting off drugs and learning basic life skills.

Why would I trust someone else to redistribute MY wealth?

Why not? Are you so omniscient you know who to distribute it to? Do you have the time, the will, the skill to listen to people's needs and make a fair allocation of your wealth?

Under the Mosaic covenant, the priests were given the responsibility of collecting tithes and distributing this revenue to the poor. It was not left to individuals to decide how to distribute their own wealth.

The equivalent in a secular society is the government. Isn't a social worker operating on the basis of policy adopted by people you elect in a better position to determine who needs assistance than you are?

It's mine, I earned it, I use it to house, clothe, feed, educate and entertain my wife and children and I, while still contributing to my OWN retirement fund. I feel that I am a better steward for MY wealth than the best intentioned or executed of governments.

Does your government not belong to you? If you doubt its intentions and execution, do you not have the right and obligation to voice your concerns and choose representatives who will act on the basis of intentions and policies you deem appropriate?

In a democracy there is no excuse for excusing personal irresponsibility behind the alleged inefficiency of government structures.

And for that matter, after I've earned the money, if I wanted to (for instance) waste it on gambling and liquor: it's mine, it should be my prerogative.

All wealth comes ultimately from God and belongs to God. You are responsible to God for how you use it.

In biblical times, the major asset was land. Yet God told the people to whom he gave it "You are tenants in my sight." It is childish to assert "mine, mine, mine" when all is given by God.

I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. We in the US do not currently have that ideal, but for me, the ideal would be less control over my day to day life, including (especially) my finances.

The best government is the one that sees to the well-being of all its citizens and all the foreign residents in its territory. Neglect of some in order to favour others is what is to be avoided; the symptom of such neglect is poverty.

Whether this is "more" or "less" government is beside the point. Government has a God-given task and needs revenue and power to carry it out. If it has the revenue and power but does not carry out its task, that is not too much government; it is government power misused. If it does not have what it needs, it cannot do what it ought to be doing. Who then takes responsibility to see to the welfare of all? Can those driven by profit motive fill the gap?

 

[BondiHarry]

Socialism fails utterly as a 'Christian' system. We are to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness for the things we need, not a system which institutionalizes theft, encourages covetousness and makes the state into an idol. God warns us not to put our trust in princes/ie government (Psalm 146:3), that wealth gotten by vanity shall diminish (Proverbs 13:11) and I think it is clear that freer economic systems produce not only more wealth than statist systems but the lot of all men tend to be better under systems which are capitalist in nature.

Capitalism is more closely the economic expression of the liberty that God intends for men to have but I want to make clear that by capitalism I mean a truly free market system where men are free to operate as they desire so long as they do not initiate the use of force or fraud in their dealings. Many of the horrors that are laid at the feet of capitalism are actually the result of government involvement in commerce and not of a truly free market.

What the Bible suggests about government is that it is to secure the blessings of liberty, limit the predatory threat of evil men and ensure that justice is done. No where does the Bible suggest that government should redistribute wealth or otherwise engage in 'charity'.

Although capitalism is a superior system to socialism and more compatible with the teachings of the Bible so long as men are carnal and not surrendered to the holiness that God brings us, it will remain a flawed system with many men using the wealth that God blesses them with (Deuteronomy 8:18) on the lusts of the flesh rather than caring for those in need and fairly compensating the people in their employ.