Socialism doesn't work: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

[Crabtownboy]

On that note, there are numerous threads on thsi very board that debate whether parables were they were fictional stories used to convey a spiritual truth, or whether they were real events. There is no shortage of folks to think that they must be real in order to be true, based on the notion that Jesus doesn't lie.

That said, the OP is an urban legend, and there's no disputing that. There is nothing inappropriate in noting that. Neither is it inappropriate to note that a biblical parable is typically fictional.

A parable is a story not a lie. A lie is a deliberate falsehood with no intention of convey a spiritual truth.

a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parable

The word parable is Greek in origin, and means a setting side by side, a comparison. In parables divine truth is presented by comparison with material things. The Hebrew word, mashal, which parable is used to translate, has a wider significance, and is applied to the balanced metrical form in which teaching is conveyed in the poetical books of the Old Testament. See Matt. 13: 35.
Interpretation of parables. It is important to distinguish between the interpretation of a parable and the application of a parable. The only true interpretation is the meaning the parable conveyed, or was meant to convey, when first spoken. The application of a parable may vary in every age and circumstance. But if the original meaning is to be grasped, it is important to consider its context and setting. The thought to which it is linked, the connection in which it is placed, the persons to whom it is addressed, all give the clue to the right interpretation. Other rules of interpretation are: (a) Do not force a meaning on subordinate incidents. (b) Do not regard as parallel parables that are connected by superficial likeness of imagery. (c) Bear in mind that the same illustration does not always have the same significance - leaven, e.g., signifies a principle of good as well as a principle of evil. (d) Remember that the comparison in a parable is not complete, does not touch at every point. Thus, the characters of the unjust judge or the unjust steward or the nobleman who went into a far country - possibly referring to the infamous Archelaus - do not concern the interpretation of the parable. The parable draws a picture of life as it is, not as it ought to be, and compares certain points in this picture with heavenly doctrine. (e) Observe the proper proportions of a parable, and do not make the episode more prominent than the main line of teaching.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/3

lie- a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

 

[rbell]

I guess we are all to assume that the fixation on the "urban legend" angle is to hide the fact that they have no response for the points made in the OP.

I surmise we have the proliferation of obfuscation. Is that clear?

 

[targus]

I guess we are all to assume that the fixation on the "urban legend" angle is to hide the fact that they have no response for the points made in the OP.

I surmise we have the proliferation of obfuscation. Is that clear?

Well, crabby is simply following the obamamites playbook.

When encountering a discussion that is not flattering to "the one":

Step one - go off topic and stay off topic until everyone else gives up.

Step two - pretend that you have successfully defeated the arguement with irrefutable logic and a superior grasp of the issues.

 

[Paul Brand]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

In one of my classes, the professor had a game we would be graded on. We would compete one-on-one with another classmate. If we each chose Option 1, we would both get a "D". If we both chose Option 2, we would both get a "B". If one guy chooses Option 1, and the other guy chooses Option 2. The one guy gets an "A" and the other guy gets an "F".

Individually, the best option is to choose Option 1, regardless of what your competition does. If everyone acts in their own libertarian self-interest, everyone gets a "D". If everyone cooperates, everyone gets a "B".



In other words, a laissez-faire economy isn't maximally efficient at macro level, even if individuals act perfectly rationally.

 

[Johnv]

I guess we are all to assume that the fixation on the "urban legend" angle is to hide the fact that they have no response for the points made in the OP.

On the contrary, in the same post where I said, "The OP is an urban legend, and not a true story", I also said "it makes a point that has the ring of truth." I got berated by the poster for noting the fact that the OP was an urban legend, and my concurrence with the context was ignored.

 

[Revmitchell]

In one of my classes, the professor had a game we would be graded on. We would compete one-on-one with another classmate. If we each chose Option 1, we would both get a "D". If we both chose Option 2, we would both get a "B". If one guy chooses Option 1, and the other guy chooses Option 2. The one guy gets an "A" and the other guy gets an "F".

Individually, the best option is to choose Option 1, regardless of what your competition does. If everyone acts in their own libertarian self-interest, everyone gets a "D". If everyone cooperates, everyone gets a "B".



In other words, a laissez-faire economy isn't maximally efficient at macro level, even if individuals act perfectly rationally.

You speak of that which you know nothing about. This country was not founded on socialism therefore it is wrong in the US. All the Federal spending is not constitutional. And refusal to apply ungodly and uncosntitutional socialism does not add up to a laissez-faire economy. It is not an either or proposition.

 

[Jim1999]

Neither pure socialism nor pure democracy will work. Democracy with social responsibility, however, serves the people and does work.

By the way, England showed what Churchill could do with his democratic dictatorship. We sacked him in 1945 and installed a socialist government.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Neither pure socialism nor pure democracy will work. Democracy with social responsibility, however, serves the people and does work.

By the way, England showed what Churchill could do with his democratic dictatorship. We sacked him in 1945 and installed a socialist government.

Cheers,

Jim

The united states is not a democracy. And it was founded on little fed activity and primarily states rights. And England has been going down hill ever since.

 

[Paul Brand]

You speak of that which you know nothing about. This country was not founded on socialism therefore it is wrong in the US. All the Federal spending is not constitutional. And refusal to apply ungodly and uncosntitutional socialism does not add up to a laissez-faire economy. It is not an either or proposition.

You would probably define me as a socialist, although I would not define myself as such, nor would I define Obama as a socialist. Your classroom example suggests that Obama believes in government re-distribution of all wealth. Well, that's not really all that close to reality. Even with the existing and modest re-distribution of wealth, the top income earners still earn huge multiples of that of lower income earners. I think the rich benefit with a social safety net, which turns out to be rather counter-cyclical in nature, and quite efficient economically.

I don't buy that re-distribution of wealth is ungodly. Many people are in situations where they were born in poverty, don't have well educated parents, or live in an abusive family or neighborhood. Giving them money, or food, or an education are not ungodly things to do. Jesus commands us to give to the poor.

I don't know what precisely you stand for, so I'll be careful not to speculate too much. I think when you say it's not an either/or proposition, you are implicitly arguing for partial redistribution of wealth. If so, and if Obama believes in a somewhat larger redistribution of wealth, how does your little parable instruct us in finding the right balance between encouraging a sound work ethic, and helping those in need?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Jesus told his people to feed, clothe, and care for the poor. He never said to do this by stealing from others, and you cannot call raising taxes to distribute welfare & food stamps following his command.

The professor example has to be the weakest argument for socialism I have ever seen. I would encourage you to read the parable of the talents.

 

[Paul Brand]

Jesus told his people to feed, clothe, and care for the poor. He never said to do this by stealing from others, and you cannot call raising taxes to distribute welfare & food stamps following his command.

Hi Bro. To clarify I didn't say Jesus was in favor of government re-distribution of wealth. But, I am saying that Jesus is in favour of re-distribution of wealth, and I think Jesus reminds us that our property is not our own, but the Earth is the Lord's. I don't quite believe like the Libertarians often do that property rights are the most fundamental of rights. I'm not that offended if the government takes a portion of my income to give it to those who need it more. You can call it stealing, but I think it addresses a more fundamental right.

The professor example has to be the weakest argument for socialism I have ever seen.

As I said before, I'm not a socialist. Neither is Obama, neither is my professor, and neither is the Prisoner's Dilemma. As I mentioned in the Prisoner's Dilemma post, I was applying the Dilemma to the lack of efficiency in a laissez-faire economy. Perhaps you missed that part?

I would encourage you to read the parable of the talents.

That parable is not about economics. But, if you think it is, what do you think of the Laborers in the Vineyard? Everyone got the same wage, even though some worked harder than others.

 

[Revmitchell]

You would probably define me as a socialist, although I would not define myself as such, nor would I define Obama as a socialist. Your classroom example suggests that Obama believes in government re-distribution of all wealth. Well, that's not really all that close to reality. Even with the existing and modest re-distribution of wealth, the top income earners still earn huge multiples of that of lower income earners. I think the rich benefit with a social safety net, which turns out to be rather counter-cyclical in nature, and quite efficient economically.

I don't buy that re-distribution of wealth is ungodly. Many people are in situations where they were born in poverty, don't have well educated parents, or live in an abusive family or neighborhood. Giving them money, or food, or an education are not ungodly things to do. Jesus commands us to give to the poor.

I don't know what precisely you stand for, so I'll be careful not to speculate too much. I think when you say it's not an either/or proposition, you are implicitly arguing for partial redistribution of wealth. If so, and if Obama believes in a somewhat larger redistribution of wealth, how does your little parable instruct us in finding the right balance between encouraging a sound work ethic, and helping those in need?

Obama is not merely a socialist he is a marxist. And I would suggest you do research on his positions his friends and political allies as well as his mentors before arguing to the contrary.

Setting that aside wealth redistribution is uncostitutional at the Federal level and in most states. It is contrary to what America was founded on. To legally make that change required a constitutional amendment. But our politicians on both sides of the isle have long ago set aside our constitution and only argue with it when it suits them politically.

If we are going to help people then lets help them to be self sufficient with the goal of not needing on going support rather than racking up voters who need you to give them what they need. The whole socialist mentality is quite dishonest and only serves the politicians.

As has been said no where, in scripture, was it ever suggested that we redistribute wealth using force (eg government) which is the most...again I say most inefficient way to do it. Therefore it is poor stewardship, add to that is is contrary to personal freedom and conscience.

There are other ways to assist those in need, forcing it via the government is not necessary and is only a political agenda.

 

[carpro]

Hi Bro. To clarify I didn't say Jesus was in favor of government re-distribution of wealth. But, I am saying that Jesus is in favour of re-distribution of wealth, and I think Jesus reminds us that our property is not our own, but the Earth is the Lord's.

"Forced" redistribution?

I don't think so and you can't twist scripture enough to make it say so.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But, I am saying that Jesus is in favour of re-distribution of wealth,

I'd like to see some biblical evidence.

and I think Jesus reminds us that our property is not our own, but the Earth is the Lord's. I don't quite believe like the Libertarians often do that property rights are the most fundamental of rights. I'm not that offended if the government takes a portion of my income to give it to those who need it more. You can call it stealing, but I think it addresses a more fundamental right.

The government has proven to be a poor steward of our money. Time after time I see them using our money to cover up affairs, line their pockets, and peddle influence. over us. I don't see how a Christian could possibly condone this.

As I said before, I'm not a socialist. Neither is Obama, neither is my professor, and neither is the Prisoner's Dilemma. As I mentioned in the Prisoner's Dilemma post, I was applying the Dilemma to the lack of efficiency in a laissez-faire economy.

I see that word a lot, but the truth is, what we have had is a long way from true capitalism. If you don't believe me, try and come down here and start a business, see what hoops you have to jump thru. Here we fund laziness & sloth with out tax $$, we encourage people to settle for less, we reward welfare mothers with free apartments, we give cities money to perform abortions, we provide free health care to illegal aliens, we pressure banks to loan money that can never be repaid. I don't see how you call that laissez-faire, it sounds like a nice catch phrase, but it isn't truthful. Government intervention has put us where we are, and you cannot cure a problem with more of the same. It's time the gov't just gets out of the way.

That parable is not about economics. But, if you think it is, what do you think of the Laborers in the Vineyard? Everyone got the same wage, even though some worked harder than others.

I think they were fools. And how can you say that isn't an economic lesson ?

 

[Paul Brand]

Obama is not merely a socialist he is a marxist. And I would suggest you do research on his positions his friends and political allies as well as his mentors before arguing to the contrary.

I don't think Obama is a Marxist, either. Perhaps you can point to something in his platform which suggests Obama's administration intends to take ownership of all your assets? Or maybe you think it is a conspiracy? In the reading and research I have done, I have not come across evidence that Obama is a Marxist, so perhaps you can supply me your sources, and thus save me endless time trying to figure out how you formed your opinion.

If we are going to help people then lets help them to be self sufficient with the goal of not needing on going support rather than racking up voters who need you to give them what they need.

I think that is a noble idea. I would also say that we should give to the poor regardless of whether they can be self-sustaining. Jesus said "you will always have the poor" and yet he commands us to give to them.

As has been said no where, in scripture, was it ever suggested that we redistribute wealth using force (eg government) which is the most...again I say most inefficient way to do it.

For the record, I never said that the Scripture supports government force with regard to the redistribution of wealth. Jesus never really told government what to do. He didn't tell them to get lost. He didn't tell them what to do. Probably not the main focus of his stay on Earth.

I also don't understand why you say and emphasize that it is most inefficient. I mean, I already understand what you believe, I'm more interested in learning why you believe that.

So I better understand your position, can you clarify how you resist a laissez-faire economy and reject re-distribution of wealth? Are you against all forms of Medicare/Medicaid, government funded education, military, police force, etc. If you support any of these things, how do you suppose that is done without re-distribution of wealth? If a person without money is dying without medical treatment, should they have a right to health care services to help them live? If a child grows up in poverty, should he have a right to an education? Should a mentally disabled person have the right to treatment and to minimum standard of living? Should a pregnant woman have the right to medical services to provide a safe delivery of her child? What's more fundamental? Your right to your property, or these things?

Therefore it is poor stewardship, add to that is is contrary to personal freedom and conscience.

If government use of money is inefficient, then it would be poor stewardship, but that point is debatable. I don't think a laissez-faire economy really offers freedom and conscience, and the Prisoner's Dilemma shows that at times, it is also inefficient.

There are other ways to assist those in need, forcing it via the government is not necessary and is only a political agenda.

Yes, there are other ways, and if there was a better way that is achievable, I'd be all for it. Without law enforcement, I don't think it would be achievable. I don't think enough people care to resolve these issues without enforcement of the collective will. The Prisoner's Dilemma applies. More can be achieved if everyone contributes.

 

[Paul Brand]

I'd like to see some biblical evidence.

Jesus says you should give to the poor. That would be re-distribution of wealth. Or consider the book of Acts, where the Chrisitans didn't consider their property their own, but shared freely with those in need.

 

[Paul Brand]

The government has proven to be a poor steward of our money. Time after time I see them using our money to cover up affairs, line their pockets, and peddle influence. over us. I don't see how a Christian could possibly condone this.

Corporations do the same thing. So, I don't really see how you can condone capitalism either. Actually, it requires government to regulate those things, so if you are anti-government, you don't have much of a mechanism to stop corruption. And to clarify, I'm not saying that just any government is satisfactory. In a democracy, the voting power is well distributed, but it can still be corrupt, becuase people elect corrupt politicians, and people can't always discern who is trustworthy.

I see that word a lot, but the truth is, what we have had is a long way from true capitalism. If you don't believe me, try and come down here and start a business, see what hoops you have to jump thru. Here we fund laziness & sloth with out tax $$, we encourage people to settle for less, we reward welfare mothers with free apartments, we give cities money to perform abortions, we provide free health care to illegal aliens, we pressure banks to loan money that can never be repaid. I don't see how you call that laissez-faire, it sounds like a nice catch phrase, but it isn't truthful. Government intervention has put us where we are, and you cannot cure a problem with more of the same. It's time the gov't just gets out of the way. I think they were fools. And how can you say that isn't an economic lesson ?

I'm not saying your government is laissez-faire. And I'm not entirely against laissez-faire either. I believe government has an important role to play in an efficient economy, and I also believe that ethical entrepreneurship should be encouraged. My views are well nuanced. Just because I'm against one extreme, doesn't mean I favour the other extreme.

 

[Paul Brand]

"Forced" redistribution?

As I have said a few times, Jesus doesn't have anything to say about that. Or at least, nothing that I can think of. I mean, he did say you should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and that meant you should pay your taxes, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Jesus says you should give to the poor. That would be re-distribution of wealth. Or consider the book of Acts, where the Chrisitans didn't consider their property their own, but shared freely with those in need.

Jesus says to feed the poor, clothe the poor, and care for the infirm. Their is no command from Christ to use other people's money to do this. Also, the Bible forbids me to brag about my giving, suffice to say I will not defend myself against charges that I don't give enough. You think what you want to.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Corporations do the same thing. So, I don't really see how you can condone capitalism either. Actually, it requires government to regulate those things, so if you are anti-government, you don't have much of a mechanism to stop corruption. And to clarify, I'm not saying that just any government is satisfactory. In a democracy, the voting power is well distributed, but it can still be corrupt, becuase people elect corrupt politicians, and people can't always discern who is trustworthy.

The best mechanism to stop corruption is an informed public.