Note: in the interest of keeping a response in manageable length, I am only responding to a few points. If there is something I skipped that you think should be addressed, feel free to mention it.
WHY does God establish government and what does HE (and not men) task it with.
God establishes government so that people may live in peace and security. As it is said by the prophet: "they shall all sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree and no one shall make them afraid." Micah 4:4
There are many tasks that go into this.
And God only tasks government with wielding the sword against the evil doer and ensuring justice is done for all men.
That is assuming that only Romans 13:1-7 speaks of the duties of government. Much too narrow a scriptural base. The duties of government are laid out in the laws of Moses, in the Psalms, in Proverbs and in the prophets and confirmed by Jesus, who like the prophets, condemns authorities who have strayed from their covenantal responsibilities to become oppressors instead of defenders of the poor.
But even on the basis of Romans 12, ensuring that justice is done for all men (and widows and orphans and aliens or equally vulnerable people) means defending the weak from the greed of the powerful. With the sword if necessary, but better through good laws and practices.
I am a Christian under grace, not a Jew under the law.
And Jesus said "Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfil. . . . for unless your righteousness
exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of God."
So the OT laws are a bare minimum--the basics. Christians are called to an ever higher standard of social justice. Because of the life, death and resurrection of our Lord.
By what right does government take the bread of ones man labor to give to another man?
Well let's look at what scripture says:
1. the law of gathering manna. Manna itself was gift of God to the children of Israel in the desert. But it had to be gathered and that is labour. Now some are better, stronger, quicker, and can gather manna more efficiently than their neighbours. But what is God's command?
No one, whatever their ability, is to gather more than they need, lest others be without. This is an example of capping how much one person can earn so that no one else is deprived because they are older or slower or whatever.
Manna economics is an economics of enough not more, more, more and recognizes the sinfulness of permitting accumulation of wealth if it leaves anyone else destitute of what they need. The strong are not to take all they can, just because they can. They are to take only a sufficiency so that all may have enough.
2. the law of gleaning. God provides the harvest to be sure, but the landowner and his family and household servants have done the work of ploughing and planting and weeding and now of harvesting. Surely it all belongs to him, right?
No, for the law of Moses decrees that the field not be cut in the corners and that even in the middle of the field gleaners may pick up what the reapers drop. And whatever is missed in the first round of reaping is also to be left to the gleaners.
So, by the command of God, it is the right of the poor to take what the landowner laboured for.
And note that the landowner is still required to pay a tithe of what he does harvest.
The law of gleaning is confirmed in the NT by the incident in which the disciples harvested grain as they walked through a field. Note that the Pharisees did not reprove them for harvesting in another man's field. They knew that was their right (within defined limits). They only objected because they did so on the Sabbath.
3. the law of tithing. The tithe is both a thankoffering to God and the source of provision to those who had no way to produce their own food. In an agricultural society like ancient Israel, that meant those who had no land. Two-thirds of the tithe went to the priests and Levites, who were assigned no tribal territory; the remaining third was designated for the poor of the land, especially widows, orphans and resident aliens--but also to all landless people.
So all those who have no means of securing their own livelihood, have, by God's command, a right to a share in what is produced by those who do.
This, among other things, recognizes God as the true owner and provider of all earthly benefits and the responsibility of all provide for others as God has provided for them.
It certainly doesn't come from God as He says he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
Well, Paul was certainly not talking about the poor here for in his day there were no poor who did not work.
So who is he talking about? While most early Christians were poor, some were not. (Joseph of Arimathea, Dorcas, Lydia, Paul himself, etc.) Some had means and education and social status. And some of these held manual labour (such as tent-making) to be beneath them. The usual option for young men of this sort was to seek a wealthy patron. And a patron who had many clients did not need any of them much of the timeso they often had a lot of free time on their hands.
A young client of a wealthy patron is the most likely to receive this sort of admonition from Paul. Paul recognizes the dangers of dependence on a patron and prescribes independence and self-sustenance through workincluding manual labour.
(One can note that throughout history the word idle applied to people has usually been followed by rich and that the rich were also called the leisured classes precisely because they did not need to work.)
Why not just return public schools to local control as we used to have it and let the community set the educational agenda for their children?
So you do support public services after all.
It is not the duty of government to see to it that people are not deprived of fulfilling their potential by the impact of extreme poverty.
Scripturally, yes it is. God's promise to Israel was "there will be no poor among you ... if you will only obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today." Deuteronomy 15: 4-5
Significantly, this promise is set in a section of the law dealing with how to treat a person in need.
Besides not being tasked by God to do so, government does not create wealth and every penny that it spends must first come OUT of the private sector.
And every penny it spends goes directly or indirectly into the private sector again. Why do you think companies seek government contracts?
This means the parents of children and all those who are seeking to increase their wealth must of necessity have LESS money to take care of their needs.
That depends on what the government is spending its money on. If it is following the directions of scripture to see provide justly for all its citizens, then all parents and children will be beneficiaries. It is when governments do not provide schools that parents have to find more money to support private schools and not all parents can do that. It is when governments do not provide a health care service, that individuals go bankrupt trying to pay for surgery. It is when governments do not provide a transportation network that people have to pay tolls to private operators.
Parents will pay, one way or another, through taxes or out of their own pockets, but when they pay through taxes, all parents and all children benefit. When they have to pay out of their own pocket, only those with deep pockets benefit and the rest are deprived of what they need.
There is no contest between the wealth creating ability of capitalism and socialism ... capitalism wins hand down in creating wealth and raising the standard of living for more people.
Only God creates wealth. Capitalism does not create wealth. It captures it. It is a mode of organizing the distribution of existing wealth, usually from the poor to the wealthy.
(I hope you do understand how the free market works and that exploitation cannot last for long UNLESS it has government protection as is often the case).
At least we are in agreement there.
Are you claiming socialism does this by going to court against the accused wealthy exploiter? Funny, I thought socialism just confiscated the money via taxation with no concern whatsoever if the taxed is guilty of wrong doing or not.
Well, you were wrong. The only socialism (or capitalism) I support is one based on democracy. In a healthy democracy taxation, being decided on by the people, is not confiscation. (You should know that. After all, the American Revolution grew out of a protest against taxation without representation.) In a healthy democracy, taxes are collected by the people, for the people, for projects people have collectively decided they need and want and cannot achieve except through collective action.
And yes, people win many social victories through court cases.
NO ONE has an inherent right to the wealth or labor of their fellow man
Yet, the rich consistently take the labour of the poor and exploit their need and helplessness, building their own wealth on other's poverty. I am glad you agree this is not right.
(again, the charity that Jesus preached is something different).
Yes, it is. And socialism is not about charity. It is about what makes for a just society in which all are provided with at least their basic needs--as is the right of everyone to whom God has given the breath of life. And as God expects of good government.
For the things we need we are told to look to the kingdom of God AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS
And the kingdom of God is exactly that kind of society---one in which people have what they need (each has his own vine, his own fig tree) and is secure and without fear.
Note that it is impossible for everyone to have their own vine and fig tree if one person (or corporation) is allowed to buy them all up or if a government can come in and expropriate them all.
Also, when everyone is secure in the possession of their own vine and fig tree, they don't need welfare.
That is the ideal socialism promotes.
This is why we have courts and the right to sue such companies.
Unfortunately winning a court case doesn't restore the shrimp beds. Or restore a watershed that has been compromised. Waiting for harm to be done before acting is sometimes unjust.
Yes. In the first place, scripture tells us in both the Old and the New Testament that the labourer is worthy of his hire. He is to be paid fairly.
In the second place we have a consistent track record of companies seeking to reduce labour costs and demanding people work for less than they need to live on. (And to the extent they succeed, more ethical employers are forced to either follow suit or are driven out of business.)
There are only two effective means of assuring that the labourer gets what is due him: a union contract or a legislated minimum wage. Ideally, both will play a role. But only legislation benefits all labourers, organized or not.
If employers were not so unscrupulous, always trying to undercut the needs of their workers, a minimum wage law would be unnecessary, but human nature being what it is, it is essential, for without it, the worker has no legal recourse when employers arbitrarily reduce pay below the worth of his labour.
Is mandatory union membership just?
Depends on who is doing the mandating. A closed shop should always be negotiable i.e. it should not be forbidden by law. But I would hesitate to say it should be mandated by law either. Better if it be negotiated as part of the contract.
Is government mandating companies provide family leave, free birth control or spousal benefits (even when the 'spouse' is a member of the same sex in violation of God's law) just?
Any benefit mandated by law must be mandated for all regardless of religious opinion.
Of course there can be controversy about what a government should or should not mandate. But once Congress agrees to mandating any benefit, no potential recipient can be blocked from the benefit on the grounds that they dont agree with or practice Christian moral codes. That would violate the First Amendment. The government, in American law, is not an arm of the church.
Perhaps you would like to return to medieval practice when it was?
Is government breaking up 'monopolies' who gained their large market share by providing excellent goods and services at prices that led consumers to flock to them just?
Absolutely. Especially if you believe in capitalism. Monopolies are anathema to a healthy capitalist economy. After all, the 19th century promoters of capitalism were aiming to eliminate royally-sanctioned monopolies. Free trade as they envisioned it, is inherently anti-monopolistic. You cant have monopolies and also have the vaunted free choice attributed to a capitalist economy.
True but you won't have such a country when you expand government beyond its duty of protecting people from the predatory man (wielding the sword against the evil doer) and ensuring justice is done.
Isn't that exactly what I have been talking about all along? Protecting people, ordinary people, from the predatory tactics of others who by reason of wealth and influence are more powerful. In most societies the predator is usually a rich and powerful man or corporation whose victim is a poor and/or vulnerable person, or community, without the means to defend their rights themselves. That is precisely where it is the duty of government (the king in biblical terms) to see that justice is done. (Psalm 72:4; Proverbs 31:8-9)
Instead what you create is a mechanism where one group of people can legally exploit another group and that ALWAYS leads to disaster.
We already have that. And yes, it does lead to disasterlike the current economic mess.
The aim is to take away the power of the 1% to destroy the lives of the 99%.
