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

[Paul Brand]

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.

Right, there is only a command to give to pay your taxes, as far as I can remember. I'm not sure what that implies. Caesar considered himself "Lord" and so I find the context rather unhelpful to our present situation, not to mention that Jesus neither condones nor condemns government. Paul says some interesting things in Romans about the legitimacy of government, but I don't suppose that's an endorsement of the government at the time, but perhaps it is an endorsement of the institution.

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.

To clarify, when I said "you should give to the poor", that is not saying you personally don't give to the poor, but rather that people in general ought to give to the poor. Note, I'm not using the word "you" in a personal sense (other languages have words to distinguish the personal "you" from the general "you).

I trust you are a very charitable fellow, and thus take seriously Jesus' instruction to re-distribute your wealth. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The best mechanism to stop corruption is an informed public.

Agreed.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

You will have to do your own research this has been debated endlessly here. Your thinking does not change the reality.

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.

But we do not set up an entire economic system based on that.

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.

When you argue for it and then use scripture to support it that is the impression you give.

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.

I told why. Because this country was founded on the direct opposite. And the only sustaining government and economic system are those whos residents areself sustaining. Otherwise there are not enough taxes to collect to support supporting everyone else. The outgoing has to first be earned. Everyone needs to earn something toward their living. Anything else is not sustainable.


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,[/quote]

Yes

government funded education,

yes

military, police force,

Not wealth redistribution

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?

How did the mother get to this place? How did the mentally disabled come to have no family support? How did the child come to grow up in poverty? Socialism wants to treat symptoms. Lets treat the problems instead.

If government use of money is inefficient, then it would be poor stewardship, but that point is debatable.

proven fact

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.

Again your thinking does not change reality.

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.

Again this country was not founded on socialism and that is in direct opposition to its founding. And What you ignored was states rights. This country was founded on states rights and little federal involvement. Either way socialism is a political tool and fails the poor on every hand. It is about power and votes and is disguised as provision for the needy. It is dishonest and evil.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I trust you are a very charitable fellow, and thus take seriously Jesus' instruction to re-distribute your wealth. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't see this command. At all. The only re-distribution of wealth I see in scripture is the parable of the talents. Please don't confuse the two subjects. I do not support wealth redistribution in the sense that you mean it.

 

[carpro]

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.

Sure he did.

He gave us instructions for giving many times. At no time did he ever encourage taking from others in order to do it.

The fact you say Obama is not a socialist doesn't lend credence to your interpretation of scripture. It indicates, instead, a willingness to be deceived to accomplish your own agenda. Your blindness to the teachings of Christ are not surprising either, considering your blindness to the fact that Obama is a socialist.

 

[Paul Brand]

Sure he did.

He gave us instructions for giving many times. At no time did he ever encourage taking from others in order to do it.

I think you are arguing from an absence of evidence. It is equally credible to suggest that Jesus spoke many times about helping the poor, and at no time did he say government didn't have a role.

The fact you say Obama is not a socialist doesn't lend credence to your interpretation of scripture.

To clarify, I didn't suggest that line of reasoning.

It indicates, instead, a willingness to be deceived to accomplish your own agenda.

What is my agenda?

Your blindness to the teachings of Christ are not surprising either,

It goes without saying that I disagree with your assertion, though I do admit that I haven't fully understood all the mysteries of Christ.

considering your blindness to the fact that Obama is a socialist.

I don't really see the connection between me being deceived about Christ as being connected with whether I think Obama is a socialist. What do you mean by socialist?

 

[Paul Brand]

I don't see this command. At all. The only re-distribution of wealth I see in scripture is the parable of the talents.

As I mentioned before, the application of the parable doesn't have much to do with economics, though economics is used metaphorically. What do you think of parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard? Wealth was distributed equally, was it not? What do you think of the Christians in Acts, where they did not consider their property their own, and gave freely to those in need.

Please don't confuse the two subjects. I do not support wealth redistribution in the sense that you mean it.

You don't support law enforced wealth redistribution, but you do support wealth redistribution. Is that accurate?

 

[Paul Brand]

You will have to do your own research this has been debated endlessly here. Your thinking does not change the reality.

To clarify, I never suggested my thinking changes reality. I haven't been around these boards much, so I would be unfamiliar with almost all of the discussion that has been had on the subject. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, but then why do you respond in depth to my comments? It's not helpful to me to merely say I'm wrong, it would be more helpful if I understood your reasoning, and if you gave me the opportunity to engage in your reasoning.

But we do not set up an entire economic system based on that.

If the entire economic system was based on a Marxist platform, would you support that?

When you argue for it and then use scripture to support it that is the impression you give.

I said Scripture is silent on the issue, so I don't think there should be any confusion, but I apologize for not being clearer.

I told why. Because this country was founded on the direct opposite. And the only sustaining government and economic system are those whos residents are self sustaining. Otherwise there are not enough taxes to collect to support supporting everyone else. The outgoing has to first be earned. Everyone needs to earn something toward their living. Anything else is not sustainable.

There is enough wealth to help everyone have access to basic needs, including food, water, shelter. I'm not suggesting everyone have access to an equal standard of living. I'm merely suggesting that everyone have the means to survive, and be given some opportunities to improve their contribution to society (e.g. access to subsidized education).

By the way, Jesus also commanded us to treat symptoms. Connsider the Rich Man, whom Jesus told that he must sell everything he had and give it to the poor.

Not wealth redistribution

Do you believe that government should have the right to steal from people to fund law enforcement and the military? How should the funds be stolen from the people? Should every man, woman, and child give $X, or X%. I think X% is wealth redistribution, which is easier to see if you imagine if everything you bought was based on a % of your wealth.

How did the mother get to this place? How did the mentally disabled come to have no family support? How did the child come to grow up in poverty? Socialism wants to treat symptoms. Lets treat the problems instead.

Again, I'm not a socialist just because I believe that government can do some things more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. Government programs do both in the treatment of symptoms and the treatment of problems. How do you propose that the problems be treated?

proven fact

Where is the proof?

Again your thinking does not change reality.

Again, I never said it does.

Again this country was not founded on socialism and that is in direct opposition to its founding. And What you ignored was states rights. This country was founded on states rights and little federal involvement.

Your line of reasoning is kind of like the negative form of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the suggestion that something is wrong because of how it originated. You appear to be suggesting that something is right because of how it originated. Either form is fallacious. And I don't think you really believe your logic. If a government were formed on the opposite principles, would you support it? The origins of America's economic system does not address what is good or bad.

Either way socialism is a political tool and fails the poor on every hand. It is about power and votes and is disguised as provision for the needy. It is dishonest and evil.

As you say, just because you believe it doesn't change reality.

 

[Revmitchell]

To clarify, I never suggested my thinking changes reality. I haven't been around these boards much, so I would be unfamiliar with almost all of the discussion that has been had on the subject. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, but then why do you respond in depth to my comments? It's not helpful to me to merely say I'm wrong, it would be more helpful if I understood your reasoning, and if you gave me the opportunity to engage in your reasoning.

Actually you give me opinion without support I do the same in return.

If the entire economic system was based on a Marxist platform, would you support that?

Sorry this makes no sense.

I said Scripture is silent on the issue, so I don't think there should be any confusion, but I apologize for not being clearer.

You also pointed to Jesus which is the same as pointing to scripture You cannot have it both ways.

There is enough wealth to help everyone have access to basic needs, including food, water, shelter. I'm not suggesting everyone have access to an equal standard of living. I'm merely suggesting that everyone have the means to survive, and be given some opportunities to improve their contribution to society (e.g. access to subsidized education).

No there isn't unless everyone is self productive.

By the way, Jesus also commanded us to treat symptoms. Connsider the Rich Man, whom Jesus told that he must sell everything he had and give it to the poor.

You need to look into the context of Jesus point. That is not it.

Do you believe that government should have the right to steal from people to fund law enforcement and the military? How should the funds be stolen from the people? Should every man, woman, and child give $X, or X%. I think X% is wealth redistribution, which is easier to see if you imagine if everything you bought was based on a % of your wealth.

I know libbies like to draw similarities between health care and public services but they are far from similar. Look into it.

Again, I'm not a socialist just because I believe that government can do some things more efficiently and effectively than the private sector.

No evidence for that.

Government programs do both in the treatment of symptoms and the treatment of problems. How do you propose that the problems be treated?

No government and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes they do not want to solve problems then they would not be needed and would have no reason to garner votes.

Your line of reasoning is kind of like the negative form of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the suggestion that something is wrong because of how it originated. You appear to be suggesting that something is right because of how it originated. Either form is fallacious. And I don't think you really believe your logic. If a government were formed on the opposite principles, would you support it? The origins of America's economic system does not address what is good or bad.

No I am saying that this country was founded on different principles than yours. We are the wealthiest nation in the world in a shorter amount of time. People come here for education, health care, and average living because of that. Now liberals want to change what works by exaggerating problems such as the number of Americans without health care. Americans cannot legitimately go to a socialistic economy without changing the constitution. It is not set up for that.

As you say, just because you believe it doesn't change reality.

I met opinion with opinion. That is all it deserved. If you are going to assert something provide support and I will give it more time.

 

[Paul Brand]

Actually you give me opinion without support I do the same in return.

The burden of proof is on you, since it is your claim that Obama is a Marxist.

Sorry this makes no sense.

That's right. Genetic fallacies don't make sense. They are illogical.

You also pointed to Jesus which is the same as pointing to scripture You cannot have it both ways.

I don't deny I pointed to Scripture or Jesus. I do deny that I pointed to either as endorsing government programs. I use Scripture to provide a moral fondation to my arguments. We are commanded to give to the poor. We are commanded to treat both the problems and the symptoms. I didn't say that governments are commanded to do these things. Scripture is silent on the role of government in social policy.

No there isn't unless everyone is self productive.

So, if one person is unproductive, the productivity of everyone else is insufficient to cover their needs as well as that one extra person? I can't make sense of your claim.

You need to look into the context of Jesus point. That is not it.

How do you know I ignored the context? I didn't offer an interpretation. I didn't think I needed to. But I think it is rather evident from Jesus' rhetoric that it is virtuous to sell what you have and give it to the poor. Do you deny that Jesus taught us to feed the poor?

I know libbies like to draw similarities between health care and public services but they are far from similar. Look into it.

You didn't answer my question. How do you suppose government should steal money from the public to fund those things?

No evidence for that.

No evidence for what? That I'm not a socialist?

No, government and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes they do not want to solve problems then they would not be needed and would have no reason to garner votes.

I think you need to edit this sentence for readability.

No I am saying that this country was founded on different principles than yours.

You said it was right becuase it was the way America was founded. That's a genetic fallacy.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world in a shorter amount of time. People come here for education, health care, and average living because of that.

America has has a social safety net since it came out of the Great Depression. You are making an argument against what America has stood for since the 1940s.

Now liberals want to change what works by exaggerating problems such as the number of Americans without health care. Americans cannot legitimately go to a socialistic economy without changing the constitution. It is not set up for that.

Why do you keep bringing up the constitution? We aren't debating the constitution, we are debating the merits/demerits of government social safety nets. I don't know why Americans are so fearful of universal medicare. Canada spends far less on health care as a % of GDP, and people in Canada live longer on average. The US health care system is broke. It needs fixing, but it can't be fixed overnight.

I met opinion with opinion. That is all it deserved. If you are going to assert something provide support and I will give it more time.

Perhaps you can be more clear with regard to what opinions I have that are not adequately backed up. I try not to go too long on my posts, and that means I don't back up every assertion. If I don't back up an assertion, it is usually with the idea that it is a commonly believed assertion. If you disagree, challenge me on what you find disagreeable.

 

[Revmitchell]

The burden of proof is on you, since it is your claim that Obama is a Marxist.

I pointed you to evidence.

That's right. Genetic fallacies don't make sense. They are illogical.

Ring around the posey

I don't deny I pointed to Scripture or Jesus. I do deny that I pointed to either as endorsing government programs. I use Scripture to provide a moral fondation to my arguments.

Really? Do you want to rethink this and try again.

We are commanded to give to the poor. We are commanded to treat both the problems and the symptoms. I didn't say that governments are commanded to do these things. Scripture is silent on the role of government in social policy.

You treat the problem and the symptom goes with it. Liberals only want to treat the symptoms for their political gain. The result is socialism.

So, if one person is unproductive, the productivity of everyone else is insufficient to cover their needs as well as that one extra person? I can't make sense of your claim.

No you don't want to and this is a distortion of what I said. I did not speak to single I am referring to the collective.

How do you know I ignored the context? I didn't offer an interpretation. I didn't think I needed to. But I think it is rather evident from Jesus' rhetoric that it is virtuous to sell what you have and give it to the poor. Do you deny that Jesus taught us to feed the poor?

You did offer both the context and the interpretation. That passage has nothing to do with how we should treat the poor. It is about salvation alone.

You didn't answer my question. How do you suppose government should steal money from the public to fund those things?

I did answer your question. Go back and read it. Your comparison is false.

No evidence for what? That I'm not a socialist?

That government does these things more efficiently.

I think you need to edit this sentence for readability.

Mo you do not like it and wish to attack it.Nothing more. the statement is clear.

You said it was right becuase it was the way America was founded. That's a genetic fallacy. America has has a social safety net since it came out of the Great Depression. You are making an argument against what America has stood for since the 1940s.

It was and still is unconstitutional

Why do you keep bringing up the constitution? We aren't debating the constitution, we are debating the merits/demerits of government social safety nets.

Because in this country they are unconstitutional at the federal level so they are a no starter. And we are discussing health care in America.

I don't know why Americans are so fearful of universal medicare.

Yes you do you just do not like it.

Canada spends far less on health care as a % of GDP, and people in Canada live longer on average. The US health care system is broke. It needs fixing, but it can't be fixed overnight.

Even if this were true,and it is not, one fact does not lead to another automatically.

Perhaps you can be more clear with regard to what opinions I have that are not adequately backed up. I try not to go too long on my posts, and that means I don't back up every assertion. If I don't back up an assertion, it is usually with the idea that it is a commonly believed assertion. If you disagree, challenge me on what you find disagreeable.

reread your statement and see if you are satisfied with it.

 

[carpro]

I don't really see the connection between me being deceived about Christ as being connected with whether I think Obama is a socialist. What do you mean by socialist?

But you can see a connection between the teachings of Christ about giving and modern day socialism?

You are either being disingenious or are truly blinded by your own agenda.

Both are probably true.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

As I mentioned before, the application of the parable doesn't have much to do with economics, though economics is used metaphorically. What do you think of parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard? Wealth was distributed equally, was it not? What do you think of the Christians in Acts, where they did not consider their property their own, and gave freely to those in need.

As I mentioned before, you are wrong. I already told you the laborers were fools to be taken advantage of, and there is a great economic lesson in the parable of the talents. The guy who sat on his money was called "evil".

You don't support law enforced wealth redistribution, but you do support wealth redistribution. Is that accurate?

No. It isn't accuratye at all. I support private charity work, out of the scrutiny of our government. I do not support giving money to people who refuse to work. I do not support state-run welfare. I do not support taking money from the successful, and giving it to those who are not.

 

[Paul Brand]

As I mentioned before, you are wrong. I already told you the laborers were fools to be taken advantage of, and there is a great economic lesson in the parable of the talents. The guy who sat on his money was called "evil".

The people you called fools are the disciples of Christ.

Social welfare policy isn't about helping those who refuse to help themselves. Your application is very stretchy.

No. It isn't accuratye at all. I support private charity work, out of the scrutiny of our government. I do not support giving money to people who refuse to work. I do not support state-run welfare. I do not support taking money from the successful, and giving it to those who are not.

You don't seem to understand how a welfare program is run. It is not intended for those who refuse to find work. Many people are denied welfare for this reason. Your assumption is that welfare is only for those who refuse to help themselves. That's a very cyncial point of view.

 

[Paul Brand]

But you can see a connection between the teachings of Christ about giving and modern day socialism?

I wouldn't do that because I'm not a proponent of socialism.

I don't think the Scriptural context discusses the issue of social welfare. I believe that God wants us to help those in need. There are various means to do that, and I believe government programs can play an integral and effective role. The Scripture I have quoted is to suggest that we need to help those who are poor. Some of the comments thus far suggest we shouldn't help the poor, or that people are better off without our help. This type of Libertarianism is more rooted in the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand than the teachings of Christ. Of course when we help the poor, we should meet their physical needs, and give them the means to be self sufficient, if possible. Some people cannot possibly be self-sufficient (people with mental or physical disabilities), and I think it is appropriate for society to take their burdens on ourselves.

 

[Revmitchell]

Some of the comments thus far suggest we shouldn't help the poor, or that people are better off without our help.

No such thing has been said or even implied by anyone.

 

[carpro]

I wouldn't do that because I'm not a proponent of socialism.

You already have.

 

[Paul Brand]

I pointed you to evidence.

Your source was www.baptistboard.com. Kind of vague.

Ring around the posey

You are very confused.

Really? Do you want to rethink this and try again.

No. Do you want to attempt a response?

You treat the problem and the symptom goes with it. Liberals only want to treat the symptoms for their political gain. The result is socialism.

That is very cynical, and unnecessarily divisive. Blah blah blah, conservatives have perfect motives, and liberals are perfectly evil, blah, blah, blah. Not very conducive to intelligent discussion.

No you don't want to and this is a distortion of what I said. I did not speak to single I am referring to the collective.

You said everyone needs to contribute for everyone to have their needs met. Totally false assertion you made. Perhaps you want to revise?

You did offer both the context and the interpretation. That passage has nothing to do with how we should treat the poor. It is about salvation alone.

At face value, it seems that Jesus connected the two together (albeit with a touch of hyperbole). Do you interpret otherwise? Can a person be saved and then neglect the poor? How about Zacchaeus? What did Jesus say when he offered to make multiple times what he wrongly took in taxes? Jesus said "salvation has come to this house". We are God's workmanship, created in Christ to do good works. True religion is this, taking care of orphans and widows in their distress. It doesn't say, 'teach the orphans and widows to fish, so they can fend for themselves.' Not saying it wouldn't be a good idea for people to fend for themselves, but that we are called to care for the needy regardless of whether we are also able to teach them to fend for themselves.

I did answer your question. Go back and read it. Your comparison is false.

I re-read it, and still don't see your answer. Try again.

That government does these things more efficiently.

The context is what defines a socialist, not whether socialism is valid. What I said stands.

Mo you do not like it and wish to attack it.Nothing more. the statement is clear.

No government and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes they do not want to solve problems then they would not be needed and would have no reason to garner votes.

Try adding some commans and semi-colons, or something. I'm pretty sure there is a comma after "No".

Here's what might be better, "No. Governments and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes. They do not want to solve problems because if they did so, their policies would no longer be needed, and people wouldn't have a reason to vote for them.

Run-on sentences without punctuation are difficult to read. It's easy for you to read, since you wrote it, and you know the intention, which helps you interpret your own comments.

It was and still is unconstitutional

Because in this country they are unconstitutional at the federal level so they are a no starter. And we are discussing health care in America.

You are addressing a legal issue, which has nothing to do with the efficiency or effectiveness of government social programs. I'm not an American constitutional expert. I don't think Obama's health care program is going to be legally challenged due to constitutional issues.

Yes you do you just do not like it.

I quite like the health care in Canada. Everyone has coverage, it contains costs very well, and it is administratively simple. Why would you say I do not like it? Do you think I envy America's health care system? I don't. I know very few Canadians who envy it. America's system is an unnecessary drain on the economy.

Even if this were true,and it is not, one fact does not lead to another automatically.

It is not true? Sheesh, the US spends 50% more as a % of GDP on healthcare than Canada. Why do you say it isn't true? The data is readily available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

The US spends 15.3%. Canada spends 10.0%.

Avg life expectancy is 80.34 in Canada vs 78.6.

Who's getting better bang for the buck?

Are there any countries that spend more on health care than the US?

reread your statement and see if you are satisfied with it.

Yes, I am.

 

[Revmitchell]

I wouldn't do that because I'm not a proponent of socialism.

Of course not you are a neo-socialist based on what you have displayed thus far.

 

[poncho]

Of course not you are a neo-socialist based on what you have displayed thus far.

What's a neo-socialist Rev? Is it anything like progressive corporatism?

 

[Revmitchell]

What's a neo-socialist Rev? Is it anything like progressive corporatism?

It is socialism that will not admit to being socialism all though all indicators show it to be socialism. It is intellectual dishonesty wrapped up in a socialist blanket hoping to slip in incrementally by fabricating victims and exaggerating need.