Socialism in America

[Walguy]

You owned that individual right when you were born. Satan is all about himself, pride, lust, greed. We became Satans nature when Adam fell. Selfish living, self ambitions, all sorts of lusts. When we are born again it is never about self, it is all about Him and becoming like Him. Love is never seeking for itself.

Objection, Your honor. The witness's answer is unresponsive.

 

[J.D.]

You owned that individual right when you were born. Satan is all about himself, pride, lust, greed. We became Satans nature when Adam fell. Selfish living, self ambitions, all sorts of lusts. When we are born again it is never about self, it is all about Him and becoming like Him. Love is never seeking for itself.

Are we talking about surrendering our rights to God, or the State? By the way, theologically speaking, we have no rights before God, ever. He is the actual owner of everything. He has the title. Self-denial is merely coming into conscious knowledge of that fact. It has nothing to do with our relationship to the state.

 

[plain_n_simple]

We give up our old nature, or rights, and deny ourselves. A Christian has only one right, to become like Him. The State is worthless and not in the Kingdom, it will pass away.

 

[Matt Black]

Where did you get that understanding? That is not true. In 1913 it was the founding of the Federal Reserve. This Reserve was printing up more money than could be accounted for, which resulted in a bust. They sowed the seeds for a bubble that busted. Wilson replaced our Austrian model (though it was slowly being eroded for years) for a strong Central Planning Federal Reserve system. It was not the Austrian model that created the bubble, it was the Keynesian type of model. Hoover was not a Austrian economist, but he believed in the federal reserve and he hurt the economy even more by relying upon the Federal Reserve and Central Planning.

In fact, it was not the Keynesian model that got us out of the depression. If you look at the economic writings of the day, the Keynesians said that the end of the war would prove even more disastrous as it would decrease government spending and add people to a very competitive job market. Austrians said it would stimulate the economy. We were right, and the good news was the end of rationing an a huge economic boom to the country.

Some blame the "depression" of the 1870's on Austrian Economics. In fact, in economic circles this was the biggest economic argument against Austrian Economics. Even Milton Friedman had difficulty defending against that charge (though, he was not completely Austrian). However, it is interesting that economists are beginning to believe this was not the depression they once thought and the economic studies are now saying that this was a great era of boom except for one quarter in 1873 where we did see a decline. This decline was short-lived and we continued to expand.

Other than that, the cycles usually revolved around a Federal Bank/Reserve or other Central Planning methods that inflated the economy and eventually saw a bust.

So, I don't buy that the fault was Austrian Economics, as we were not practicing Austrian Economics in the 1920's.

So, to paraphrase Chesterton, what you're saying is not that Austrian economics has been tried and found wanting but that it has been found difficult and left untried? Hmmm....not sure I share that rosy view. The other point is that such a system inevitably creates winners and losers and yet fails to spell out how the losers are to be helped, and thus falls foul of the injunctions of the 'Minor Prophets' earlier cited by me. Thus, this apsect of it at least fails the 'Amos Test' and hence can be referred to as 'evil' by Christians. Therefore I am not sure how a Christian in good conscience can fully subscribe to it.

 

[Matt Black]

No it doesn't. Your view is propaganda designed to falsely denigrate a system that does not allow for government control of people's lives. Unlike across the pond we live in a free country that does not use the force of the government to do that.

It's a simple observation. And for the record I don't feel terribly controlled by my government. I am grateful for the fact that I live in a country where if one of my children injures him/herself, s/he can get free treatment without me having to worry about medical bills or insurance premiums. So I'd rather live where I do, thanks.

 

[Matt Black]

You are very correct. Capitalism is never neutral. Someone once said the essence of capitalism is what is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine. Capitalism plays on the greed of mankind for getting more and more at the expense of others.

An investment banker, an Arizona voter and a Mexican immigrant are all sitting round a table on which there are 12 cookies. The banker takes 11, nudges the voter and points to the immigrant saying "I'd watch him - he's after your cookie."

 

[Matt Black]

Cannot be proven. this is nothing more than propoganda

Again, an observation and therefore evidently demonstrable. I'm not sure therefore what definition of the word 'proof' you are seeking to promulgate here...?

 

[Matt Black]

Thus, if I had to choose between a government solution or a private solution, I believe charities are better equipped to truly care for people.

In theory I would agree with you. In practice however that has been tried and found to be wanting; it was one of the reasons the Welfare State was set up in this country (the UK) after the Beveridge Report (although quite what old William would have made of his creation today, particularly with its effectiveness on idleness, is another matter - there be the rub of course!). That 'wanting' is an historical fact - one has only to read the pages of Mr Dickens' novels to see that charity-based welfare programmes on their own are insufficient to help the poor and needy.

 

[Matt Black]

Actually, I think it is the government controlling the companies. They dole out billions in corporate welfare. If you did away with all that tomorrow, the money from corporations to elections would dry up overnight.

And that means that corporations don't control the political-governmental system how, exactly? No party or candidate is going to commit electoral suicide by promising to abandon corporate welfare!

 

[Matt Black]

The heart of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (capital; property). Private property rights is well established in the Bible. It may not be commanded, but it certainly is presumed. Take for example Naboth's vineyard. Ahab, the King of Israel himself, could not lay claim to that property. Naboth had complete ownership rights over it. Ahab stole it by Jezabel's lies who trumped up a story to quell the uprising of the people against the King that would have surely separated him from his beloved stolen vineyard.

Depends which period of Israel's history is used as your yardstick. Property rights were limited under the Law eg: by the year of jubilee. If I may quote from one of our ministers, Robin Gamblin:

the land, which they believed belonged to God, was entrusted to them corporately. They were in effect the stewards and trustees of God’s property. Inevitably this meant that to some extent they became involved in competition rather than co-operation. Some were given good land, others poor land; some were gifted farmers, others discovered themselves to be unsuited to it; some prospered while others failed.” [on the notion of covenant]: “This was a binding legal agreement given to them by God in which he promised to be their providing and protecting God, and they promised to worship and belong to him and no other God…However, the covenant was not just about worship. It extended to every area of Israel’s social, economic and community life…justice became fundamental to [God’s] people’s community living…Central to the great law codes of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) with the fundamental principle ‘thou shalt not covet’; and the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Ex 20:22-23:33). The various ordinances of the Book of the Covenant attempt to identify and give special protection to the more vulnerable members of a selfish society, e.g. slaves, aliens, widows, orphans and the poor; to contain and prohibit the widespread use of violence; to avoid exploitation in money-lending and employment practices…the Book of the Covenant also introduces the idea of the seventh year, which is developed in Deuteronomy and Leviticus into two related concepts:…The sabbatical year (Deut 15:1-15)…[and]…The year of jubilee (Lev 25)…There are also further ordinances concerning tithing the produce of the land to feed the poor and needy (Deut 14:29/26:12); payment of religious offerings being reduced in the case of the poor (Lev 12:8; 14:21; 27:8); making of loans to, and the employing of poor men (Deut 24:12, 14, 15); leaving the gleanings behind in harvested fields, or olive branches in the vineyard and then allowing the poor free access to them (Deut 24:19; Lev 19:19; Lev 23:22)[1]

[1] Gamblin, "The Irrelevant Church"., p.73.

The husbandman had the right to pay a man that worked twelve hours a penny, and pay a man that worked one hour the same amount. The money was his, he owned it, and could do whatever he wanted to with it. The Bible says so. Therefore, capitalism is clearly biblical, and of God.

Socialism is based on stealing property from its rightful owners, or it steals the proprietary rights to the use of the property, depending on which version of socialism is in power. Therefore, it is sinful, violates the commandment of God, and is not of God.

There's the potential for 'moral theft' in both systems; capitalism tends for example towards exploitation of those in a weaker bargaining position eg: the powerful master in effect steals part of the true value of his worker's labour by paying him a depressed wage; the worker has little choice but to accept this when times are tough as demand for his labour is depressed.

 

[Ruiz]

And that means that corporations don't control the political-governmental system how, exactly? No party or candidate is going to commit electoral suicide by promising to abandon corporate welfare!

This is precisely why economic theory is important. If you hold to Keynesian Economics, of course it will never end. Bush and Obama would never end the corporate entitlements and perks. Austrians would never have begun these perks and would stop them now.

Yet, you also show the reason the Occupy movement is misunderstanding things. They should go to DC to fight for these things. Instead, we are getting more government bubbles to "fix" problems created by the government instead of true reform.

 

[Aaron]

Socialism nor Capitalism equals The Kingdom. They are both inventions of this world.

"Capitalism" is in reality free enterprise. It is the gift of God for a man to enjoy the fruit of his labors. Free enterprise is right. Marxism is wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

What about enjoying the fruit of someone else's labour?

 

[Ruiz]

What about enjoying the fruit of someone else's labour?

Everyone enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor. That is the same in every system.

Which system do you advocate if you don't like capitalism (austrian economics)?

 

[Ruiz]

So, to paraphrase Chesterton, what you're saying is not that Austrian economics has been tried and found wanting but that it has been found difficult and left untried? Hmmm....not sure I share that rosy view. The other point is that such a system inevitably creates winners and losers and yet fails to spell out how the losers are to be helped, and thus falls foul of the injunctions of the 'Minor Prophets' earlier cited by me. Thus, this apsect of it at least fails the 'Amos Test' and hence can be referred to as 'evil' by Christians. Therefore I am not sure how a Christian in good conscience can fully subscribe to it.

No, it has been tried, and when it was tried throughout our world, it has produced some great results. America would use it at times and then they would run away from it at times in our history. As well, Austrian economics was used in our history to get us out of several economic depressions/recessions. The downturn of the 1830's resulted in us going back to Austrian Economics and it turned around an economy.

There is much more, but if you want a history of the Austrian School, here is a great book.

As well, I don't know what you mean by the Amos test. If you can explain then I can address. However, because there are winners and losers in life does not make this evil. The system itself is a tool, I do not see how you see it as evil.

 

[Matt Black]

Amos is particularly ‘anti-rich’, attacking their lifestyles and their abuse of the poor, together with injustice and judicial bribery (Amos 2:6-7; 3:15; 5:7; 5:12-13; 6:4-5). This is unacceptable to God (Amos 5:21-24). Micah is equally critical: the rich appropriate others’ property and destroy the poor (Micah 2:2; 3:2-3). Similar themes can be found in Isaiah 3:14-15; 10:1-4 and 58:1-6.

Everyone enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor. That is the same in every system.

The question was in response to Mandym's comment above. There is a Christian need for fairness, justice, and equity in the enjoyment of the fruits of the labours of others.

 

[Aaron]

What about enjoying the fruit of someone else's labour?

If the labor is offered freely, that's love. If it's forced, that's slavery. If one agrees to exchange it for a certain wage, that's employment.

Free enterprise is right. Marxism in all its flavors is wrong.

 

[J.D.]

Depends which period of Israel's history is used as your yardstick. Property rights were limited under the Law eg: by the year of jubilee. If I may quote from one of our ministers, Robin Gamblin:



[1] Gamblin, "The Irrelevant Church"., p.73.



There's the potential for 'moral theft' in both systems; capitalism tends for example towards exploitation of those in a weaker bargaining position eg: the powerful master in effect steals part of the true value of his worker's labour by paying him a depressed wage; the worker has little choice but to accept this when times are tough as demand for his labour is depressed.

Yes, as Gary North and Rushdoony, both free-market/Austrian school advocates, point out, that Israel often sinned in not observing the seventh year sabbath and/or the Jubilee. Property rights were and still are limited by God's design and decrees, but not by state fiat. For example, and using the extreme to make the point, no one has the "right" to committ murder on their private property.

Also, the fact that land ownership was to revert back to the original title-holder negated any claim to property the state might venture. Both corporate and state ownership of land was practically non-existent, except for properties that were necessary to the works and enterprises thereof. Just like the Constution of the U.S. was originally designed - to limit the ability of the state and commercial interests to purchase and hold property in order to artificially control its value.

As for "moral theft", there is no theft whatsoever in an employer-employee relationship as long as the employer is paying what was agreed. The idea that Marx hatched out that profit represents that portion of labour that is exploited or stolen from the laborer is irrational, and it comes straight from Hell. The employer-employee realtionship is not parasitic, it is symbiotic. It is win-win, not win-loose. Theoretically, the farmer could pick his own peaches and sell them, and never hire anyone to help. But he increases his income by hiring me to help him. He gets more profit, and I get a paycheck. We both win. He doesn't "steal" anything. It's preposterous to call it that.

Stealing takes place when the government allows the use of "unequal weights" in the marketplace. That is cronyism. Theft takes place when the state takes my money by force and gives - no, divides - it to businesses which, in the opinion of the state, are "to big to fail". That is theft.

 

[Ruiz]

Amos is particularly ‘anti-rich’, attacking their lifestyles and their abuse of the poor, together with injustice and judicial bribery (Amos 2:6-7; 3:15; 5:7; 5:12-13; 6:4-5). This is unacceptable to God (Amos 5:21-24). Micah is equally critical: the rich appropriate others’ property and destroy the poor (Micah 2:2; 3:2-3). Similar themes can be found in Isaiah 3:14-15; 10:1-4 and 58:1-6.

The question was in response to Mandym's comment above. There is a Christian need for fairness, justice, and equity in the enjoyment of the fruits of the labours of others.

Can you cite me one commentary by a respected scholar who believes these are attacks on the rich, and not an attack on those who were more immoral with their actions? Let me deal with each of these issues:

Amos 2-
This is not an attack on being rich, but an attack on not loving your brother. God, as well, called for repentance and a view of His glory.

How does this apply to Capitalism? It doesn't. As noted before capitalism is moral neutral, it depends on the individual person on whether they are evil or not, the system itself does not call for someone to trample on the poor. Rather, it also offers up opportunities for compassion to the poor in ways that other systems do not.

Amos 3:15 is not talking about the rich, but the powerful who have set themselves against God. They will fall. This is not a sweeping statement of rich people.

Amos 5:7- what does this have to do with the conversation. Again, Capitalism is not about people's actions, and as I said before that some will use it for evil and others for good. Like a gun, some may use it in an evil way, some a good way, but the gun itself is not evil.

Amos 5:12-13- Yes, taking a bribe is wrong. What does this have to do with our discussion? Capitalism is not the only system where people engage in bribery. As well, Capitalism is not about bribery thus not relevant. People may do evil things in the system, just like some do within Christianity, but that does not mean Capitalism, like Christianity, is evil.

Micah 2:2- Actually, this is contrary to Capitalism and what Capitalism states. In fact, this is closer to communism and socialism who says that inheritance is an evil thing and they seek to take that away. We don't take away people's property in a capitalist society. The rule of contract is enforced and protections from things like that in a Capitalist society.

Micah 3- again, this is not an attack on capitalism. I hate evil and love good and capitalism allows those of us to do that to use capitalism for His glory.

Isaiah 3: Are you comparing the heinous authoritarianism and totalitarianism condemned in Isaiah to today? The fact is we are not crushing people. That is what is great about capitalism, we have freedom to change jobs, to quit, and to file grievances in the court of law. This was not afforded to those they were talking about in Isaiah. This is not condemning being rich, either. It is condemning behavior. God is also not setting for economic principles to combat this, rather he merely is condemning it.

Isaiah 10- This verse is condemning stealing, not being rich. Capitalism in her essence forbids stealing.

Isaiah 58- I am assuming you believe capitalism oppresses their workers like what was done in Isaiah's day. First, the comparison is not the same. Yet, how does capitalism oppress people.

Conclussion:

Nothing you noted in these are an attack on capitalism and the Austrian Economic theory. Rather, you have seen that some have disobeyed the principles and acted immorally, then you blamed it on the system and not the person. Note, God never blames the evil on the system in these verses, but blames it on the people who did wrong. I have answered these issues in the past by relaying the gun illustration. The gun can be used for evil or good, but the gun itself is not evil. As well, in Christianity people use it for evil means and some for good, that does not mean it is evil.

Finally, I want you to tell me what system are you advocating. You can attack this system, but you offer no economic principle to change it to.

 

[Ruiz]

Yes, as Gary North and Rushdoony, both free-market/Austrian school advocates, point out, that Israel often sinned in not observing the seventh year sabbath and/or the Jubilee. Property rights were and still are limited by God's design and decrees, but not by state fiat. For example, and using the extreme to make the point, no one has the "right" to committ murder on their private property.

Also, the fact that land ownership was to revert back to the original title-holder negated any claim to property the state might venture. Both corporate and state ownership of land was practically non-existent, except for properties that were necessary to the works and enterprises thereof. Just like the Constution of the U.S. was originally designed - to limit the ability of the state and commercial interests to purchase and hold property in order to artificially control its value.

As for "moral theft", there is no theft whatsoever in an employer-employee relationship as long as the employer is paying what was agreed. The idea that Marx hatched out that profit represents that portion of labour that is exploited or stolen from the laborer is irrational, and it comes straight from Hell. The employer-employee realtionship is not parasitic, it is symbiotic. It is win-win, not win-loose. Theoretically, the farmer could pick his own peaches and sell them, and never hire anyone to help. But he increases his income by hiring me to help him. He gets more profit, and I get a paycheck. We both win. He doesn't "steal" anything. It's preposterous to call it that.

Stealing takes place when the government allows the use of "unequal weights" in the marketplace. That is cronyism. Theft takes place when the state takes my money by force and gives it to businesses which, in the opinion of the state, are "to big to fail". That is theft.

This is a great response. Thanks for your input.