We never had "unfettered capitolism". Capitolism isn't perfect, but it is the best system.
" We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have a right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: " If a man will not work, he shall not eat.""
2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 NIV
Correct, even laissez-faire Capitalism is not untouched by a government.
Well, the "foolish" ideas do work. It is why Scandinavia is such a great place to live. That and core Christian ideals knitted together.
Yeah, no wonder the European Marxist model is falling apart, and why the United States is getting worse as it falls closer inline with Marxism; meanwhile, China is getting better as it moves further inline to Capitalism.
And if you read acts it becomes clear that the first Christians were communists.
Wrong. They were Voluntaryists, they did not believe in coercing anyone into giving about their money.
How is sharing wrong? How are our material possessions of any worth lest they are used to help those in need? I don't understand why some American Christians claim that material possessions have any spiritual value. Surely as Jesus said we should pay taxes, and praise the Lord if the money we pay is used to aid those who need it?
Straw-man argument. No one is against sharing per-se, it is the coercion.
What does our material wealth amount to if it cannot be used for good?
What is good when you are coercive about it? There is no good coercion; it is pure evil.
What good is a system which does not lift up the weak, but rather encourages greed and selfishness - both grievous (and related) sins.
What good is a system when you're coerced into whatever someone else wants? The only good system is one that respects the ultimate righteousness: Liberty.
Brothers, I know you seek Jesus, but why do you embrace social darwinism so eagerly? How can you equate allowing and indeed enabling those who so desire to abuse the poor with Christianity? I may be wrong in my assertions, I am but a human being, but I fail to see how capitalistic social darwinism is unifiable with a Christ-seeking life.
How can you dare call yourself anything close to a Christian, and still support using coercion?
Hello again. I understand where you come from, but there are a couple of basic and common mistakes you have made here. Not to worry, most people who haven't read up on this make them. First off, communism does not necessarily imply a government. A communistic society is - according to some models - anarchic.
Communism is not anarchic, not by a long shot. Anarchy at least respects some establishment of liberty; communism forces everyone into the same system.
That is to say without a ruling government at all. It can be and has been applied to small groups of people successfully. Notable such cases are the first Christians, several monasteries and some other communes. Christian and non-christian. Other, often secular examples were found in Spain during their civil war.
The first Christians used a system we refer to today as Voluntaryism; they did not require nor demand that everyone else share with them, but instead recognized that people had certain unalienable rights...
You make a couple of mistakes elsewhere too. The USA is actually not the best country to live in if you are poor. There is much data that can be used to calculate which country is the best for the poor and needy, and the USA falls far down on most of those lists.
Only in the United States, can the poor purchase a 40" HDTV, or a decent gaming machine. Only in the United States, will you find poor people buying $200 Jordans for $400-$600. So don't tell me about your retarded statistics.
As far as I know there is no such list where the US is at the top. If you really want I can get you some of those lists. Or you can google them. Check out relevant stats at nationmaster.com or gapminder.org or go straight to the UN or the CIA. You'll find the data points in the same direction. The US is a fairly bad place to live if you are poor. Subjective obserations I have made during my time in and travelling through the US have served as confirmations to this effect.
Except for the fact none of those calculations used differentiate between income levels. I can tell you right now, anyone with half a brain can live 'poor' in most parts of the U.S., and do just fine.
As for socialism failing, that is also not true. There are several socialistic nations on this planet today where socialism is very successfully applied to a democratic template. The Scandinavian nations are such nations. Here we have solid proof that not only do socialist policies not bankrupt a nation, but they can if applied correctly lift a country out of rather bad poverty and into wealth and prosperity. As a case in point I present Norway which largely due to socialism was lifted out of pretty extreme poverty (the poorest nation in all of western europe at one time) to one of the richest nations in the world. Now topping lists such as the human development index. The same goes for Finland, which worked itself up in wealth and also in educational quality. Finland went from one of the worst countries in western europe to the best in the world - education wise in about 50 years precisely due to socialistic policies.
Again, the European model is failing. Every few months, another socialist democracy falls and requires bailouts from another country; it cannot be sustained, period.
I say socialism is a noble quest.
And I say unto you, coercion is the tool of the devil.
If we work to save the poor, then perhaps they will see that the Lord our God who called us to do this is a truly loving God. We cannot save them in our own power anyway. One whose followers love one another and those who do not love them back. Capitalism... Well, how can a system which thrives off of sin, and flourishes on greed and selfishness be beneficial to the Lord our God?
Capitalism flourishes on Individualism: the respect for Liberty and Life; Marxism thrives on a coercive state, and even Karl Marx has admitted that wealth redistribution requires a... "despotic engine" of sorts, to enforce it.
I am but a man, and as such I can be wrong. But I do not take a position lightly. Prior to accepting socialistic democracy as a good system I tested it. Alas I am yet to do the math myself, but my hypothesis based on rather strong data suggests that a modicum of socialistic policies which far exceeds the level in the USA is beneficial both to long term economics of a nation and to the cause of the poor, widow and the orphan. I do not see any data from the stable countries in the west to contradict this hypothesis, and I am neglecting data from the third world largely due to the political instability which is equally unfavorable to both capitalist economies and socialist ones.
George Orwell, whom was once a self-avowed socialist, said so himself in his book, 1984, that redistribution of wealth is the greatest tool to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.
The problem with this is that if it was a voluntary system, very few would help the poor, whether they deemed them "worthy" or not (whatever THAT means). It's much like the Kitty Genovese situation; people, and "good" people at that, will watch and agree that someone should do something...but no one does anything.
Wrong. Charities all across the world continue to thrive; yet governments continue to diminish themselves. The European model is failing; China is succeeding as it moves closer to a Capitalist society.
In fact, it is ONLY through a Capitalist society, that there can be a voluntary charity. Only in Capitalism, is it possible for a man to give as he chooses without worrying about coercion. Only in Capitalism, is it possible for charities to use money effectively without worrying about statist regulation.
Say there is a woman who is not yet thirty. She has two young children under the age of five, one of them handicapped, and is pregnant for another. She has no husband. She receives financial assistance, Medicaid, and food stamps. Is she a "welfare queen?"
What if I tell you that the reason she had no husband is because he died of cancer recently? That he worked hard for nearly twenty years? That he pulled 70-80 hour weeks at his job until he was so ill that he couldn't work so his children and wife would have a good life? That she has a minimum-wage job she's been working at for over five years and yet there is no way that she can make ends meet with it? That she is my sister?
If she had to rely upon those who deemed her "worthy" to give her money, she'd be out on the streets soon. Yes, people have given her money, but not nearly enough for her to support herself and the children.
I am a colon cancer survivor at age 27, with Fragile X Syndrome (AKA Missing DNA), a terminal irremovable cyst in the middle of brain (at any moment I can die from it; or worse, become just another worthless vegetable that ought to be killed), and I know how wrong you are. There are people all over willing and able to help.
I have no problem supporting the poor with my taxes. I'm not a socialist, but neither do I look down on those who are less fortunate than me. As the saying goes, there but for the grace of God go I. Am I upset when I see the scammers out there who could work but just don't wish to do so? Yes. But I see a lot of people who desperately need assistance, especially in these trying economic times, and I don't begrudge them the money. It's not like they're living high on the hog; I see how my sister still struggles daily.
It's not your place to coerce another from their fruits of labor.
