</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Great Society programs in the US have produced more hopelessness, not less. They have trapped people in poverty, not freed them.
First you say that you lot are a whizz at R&D and then you tell me that you can't manage to run a social program that us poor miserable thieving scroungers have been running for 60 years! And that as we paid off the Marshall plan. That is not a complaint. A boast. What's it to be?</font>[/QUOTE] I am saying the philosophy behind the Great Society was flawed. You cannot teach people to be dependents then expect them to not become a self-perpetuating, ever growing burden on the society on whole.
Our gov't destroyed the black family unit in many communities by rewarding illegitimacy with a gov't check. This destruction has resulted in generations of welfare moms and in more black males being in prison than in college. Prior to the Great Society and social liberalism of the 1960's, about 30% of black children were born out of wed lock (about 5% of whites). Now, over 60% of black children are born out of wedlock and about 30 % of whites. The number one most consistent factor in American poverty is homes without a father.
Further, had any of Europe been paying the full costs of your own defense, if American's had not disproportionately paid those costs, your social programs would have been economically unfeasible.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Who said anything about protecting workers?
I did.</font>[/QUOTE] I didn't though... you changed the subject.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Let's deal with one issue at a time. Labor has a value that should be rewarded.
Ok, but I will respond to your point. Labor has a value that should be rewarded. That's right. So when there is work they work, which they do here, and when there is no work they get paid so that they can live so that when the jobs are there there is someone to do them!</font>[/QUOTE] We have unemployment insurance. It could be better but people would have to pay more for it... so it is unlikely that workers will choose to do so.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Me.
The majority says how it is going to be. How can that be theft?
You.
If 99% of the people in your neighborhood say that 25% of your income should be taken and distributed between them, is it not stealing?
I said 'in a Democracy'.</font>[/QUOTE] That does not matter one whit. If stealing is wrong for an individual acting alone, it is wrong for a group of people who happen to constitute a voting majority. Right and wrong do not change dependent on the opinion of the majority.
The majority may say "how it is going to be" but they cannot change whether it is moral or not. That belongs to God alone.
I see you might have a different concept of Democracy. I would like to hear it.
We do not have a democracy nor do I want one. We have a constitutional republic with many safeguards intended to prevent the majority from denying the rights of the minority. Some of these safeguards have been circumvented by liberals over the past 100 years or so... these acts bear their bitter fruits later. For instance, the social problems caused by the Great Society really only became clear in the 1980's.
Unless something is done, we may very well see civil war in 20 to 30 years when there are only 2 workers for each retired social security recipient... and that doesn't even begin to address their medical costs.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Christ never condemned but rather encouraged those who asked for what they needed.
They are asking you for what they need. You do not condemn them then you just say no.</font>[/QUOTE] You will never find a poor person who has asked me for bread and received a stone. Again, you seem to think the only means of caring for the poor is a socialist government. I am pointing out that the secular humanism idea of socialism is not the biblical model commanded by Christ.
Even if the church fails, there is no excuse for a Christian to endorse a system that glorifies man.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I agree with Jefferson that Democracy can become a form of mob rule...
That's just crazy talk. Democracy is mob rule. Demean the mob do you Squire?</font>[/QUOTE] Not crazy at all. Protecting "right" is important even when it is not popular.
BTW, we don't have squires. It is contrary to our view that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally- "property").
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do they force them to work?
Are you serious?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't want your socialistic caste system.
We don't own the caste system you must take that higher up. The cast system belongs to the masters.</font>[/QUOTE] Not here. The conservatives/libertarians in America reject the notion that men are classed into stations.
However we see freedom and opportunity as the means of leveling the playing field... not government.
Then why don't you respect the property and possessions of others?
I thought you rejected the caste system.
Socialism is not class riven it is classes acting with each other for the common good.
Socialism is very much class driven. It divides people by station every bit as much as the system you quite apparently detest.
We have decided as a nation that the idea of allowing people to hunt for foxes and stags using dogs for the kill is unacceptable behaviour in our country.
This is maybe indicative of the difference between us and you. Hunting here is more of a common man's field. In fact, there are few if any things that could rightly be considered sports of the privileged in the US.
We the people are getting more control.
Nope. You are very sadly turning yourselves into dependent slaves of the state.
It is the original American ideals of liberty that empower the people by insuring their individual rights and responsibilities.
Socialism is a good thing.
Socialism is a wicked ideology of man that enslaves the masses with promises of common welfare. The only thing it has ever insured is common and corporate mediocrity.
Some people are socialists for the wrong reason but that does not invalidate the effects.
Virtually all people who believe in socialism think that the only reason it has not worked as that it hasn't been done by people as wise as themselves. They ignore that at its very core it fails to account for both the best and the worst realities in human nature.
The best- industry, morality, generosity, responsibility, cooperation, honesty, etc.
The worst- selfishness, laziness, dishonesty, greed, irresponsible behavior, etc.
We cannot say it is Godly in the sense that socialism is driven soley by Christian thinking, but socialism is a great gift from our Father. A tool we can use to better people.
Socialism is not godly because it is not found in the scriptures. In fact, its premises deny scriptural truths about human nature and responsibilities.
It does not make people better, only more dependent on the human system.