|
Author
|
Topic: Can socialism work in the U.S?
|
ECM
Advanced Member
Member # 7097
|
posted
Interesting posts. Remember, communists, the ultimate socialists, don't even believe in God. The further away we can stay from socialism, the better. While reading this thread, I was reminded of an article that was published years ago in a technical journal. My husband later paraphrased it. I kept the paraphrase. Here it is:
TANSTAAFL!
In the land of Kulumar the people worked their fields and tended their flocks, and everybody was properous and happy. The ruler of Kulumar, who was a benevolent soul, surveyed his happy little kingdom and decided that his hard-working subjects deserved a reward for their efforts, so he decreed that circuses be provided throughout the land so that the people could be entertained. He further decreed that admission be free so that all who wanted to could attend. And he ordered soft hassocks so that the people could watch the circuses in comfort.
The people flocked to the free circuses. The farmers left their fields, and the shepherds abandoned their flocks. Each one thought that surely his labors would not be missed in a land as prosperous as Kulumar. But soon the crops died, the animals ran away, and famine spread througout the land. The ruler, who had always wanted to do good deeds for his subjects, was grief-stricken. He did not know what to do. Finally, in desperation he decided to consult the Wise Old Man of the Mountain. After a long and arduous climb he reached the Wise Old Man and said, "Oh, Wise One, where did I go wrong? I have always done what I thought was best. I have rewarded my people with free circuses and soft hassocks, but there is only misery and despair!"
The Wise Old Man gazed at the sky, stroked his long white beard, and fianlly said: "TANSTAAFL"--which in Kulumese means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"
Esther
--------------------
Smile, God loves you.
Posts: 22 | From: Monroe, WA | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
^^^ OK TB125, I will do that extra reading. I'm sure it will help. Much Thanks.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Hi Itty-Bitty Girl,
It is so good to know that some of comments have been helpful. I'm glad that you are rethinking your attitude toward socialism. I would invite you to read a new statement that I have just added to my website. It is on "Sharing and basic economics". You can find it here: http://www.christianityetc.org/sharing.php It may add to your understanding of these matters. Let me know if you have any questions about it or if any of my comments aren't clear to you. I'm glad that you brought this thread back to this subject.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
I have received some very educated responses to this thread, thank you all. And I have learned much from all of you, especially TB125 and Micheal Harrison. Both have hung in there with me and tried to get through to me about the cons of socialism. All I saw was the pros and the pros blinded me in a way. Now that I see that socialism is not the best solution like I thought it was. I guess I will have to learn more about it, as I don't know much about it anyway. I haven't even researched it, all I did was go by what others have said about it, when they spoke so well of it, I just thought it was a good idea.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Alan Lake
New Member
Member # 7071
|
posted
I'm an American who lives in a socialist country (Finland). 85% of all Finns belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Another 10% belong to the Russian Orthodox Church. You may think of it as a Christian country.
Socialism doesn't work here. Taxes are very high to provide for the needs of the citizenry. But the government provision ranges from poor to non-existent. Why? The problem is that we still have a sinful human nature. People want to maximize what they can get, so they learn how to "work" the system. Finland has a huge bureaucracy to try to insure fairness and to try to prevent people from working the system in ways that the law doesn't allow. Most of the social welfare tax money, therefore, goes to support the bureaucrats, not to the needy.
When a government administers welfare, it must do so by law, as it does everything. It cannot write a law for every individual, so laws are written to cover groups of people. It is easy to be assigned to a group that you really don't fit in and to be treated as though you did. The effect is always negative.
You cannot sneeze without an official document, for the government must have a detailed paper trail on your every activity to be able to tell whether or not you may be cheating. (Yes, Christians cheat, if they can get away with it.)
People here also assume that the government is taking care of the needy, so the unselfish love, the charity, that the Bible commands is not practiced.
Until you can change human nature, socialism won't work. If you think it will, come over here and show the Finns how it should be done. Warning: they have almost 100 years of experience at it.
Posts: 2 | From: Ryttylä, Finland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
CHEWY
Advanced Member
Member # 6970
|
posted
Socialism, as it stands, leads to dependance on the government to provide the necessities of life. I have a real concern about allowing the same people who have bankrupted the social security system [both democratic and republican] have control over the medical system. How many grand discoveries have been developed or found in the socialist medical community? The great discoveries of medicine and the medical field for decades have been developed under the "free enterprise system." Pure socialism places the medical professionals on the government payroll at set salaries. There is little to no reward for the extra hard work and research for these people. If we believe that the government can fix a broken health care system, we are mistaken.
Don't forget that the USSR stood for the United Soviet Socialist Republic. What happened to them? There people became lethargic and the country nearly starved to death.
Free enterprise is what this country was founded on. This was the vision of our forefathers. The simple fact is, that as our government has gotten bigger, our dependance upon that government has grown. The more we depend on the federal government, the less free we are.
Socialism disrupts the ability of the people to have vision by trying to group everyone into a common range or class. Where there is no vision the people perish. The problem isn't with people getting wealthy, the problem is with greed and a hunger for power and authority.
What about our public education system? We are spending more money in our school systems than ever before. Our children are not graduating any smarter on the average. In fact the learning curve is declining. Are the teachers at fault?Not all teachers are bad. There are some who are truly dedicated and truly are gifted toward the educating of our children. But many of the teachers today are not the ones coming from our high school graduating classes that we would hand choose if we could. Why don't these people, we would hand choose to be teachers, choose to do this on their own? Because the public educational system is socialist in its structure. The pay is low and even across the board as long as you achieve standards that are low. There is no ambition in the common average educator. They just want to gain tenure and cruise through their career and be out of school all summer.
How do we keep having profound discoveries in the fields of technology and the medical professions if education is so low, you might ask? It is by the faithful few who have a real hunger for their professions, not by the masses. Thanks be to those teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. who are truly gifted in their field and are truly trying to help individuals.
Socialism is not the answer. Socialism is the next advance of a lazy generation who doesn't want to take on the responsibilities God has given them.
Chewy-
Posts: 86 | From: Kingsport Tn. | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
The problem is capitalism is a bad word. I the persuit of profits, people have used the violence of the state, just like socialist have used the violence of the state, to better their business over others. But once the coercion of the state is involved, it is no longer free market capitalism, but controlled markets for the benifit of some over others.
So a better way to compare is socialism vs free markets. Free markets are based upon voluntary exchange of goods, services and ideas with the individual being respected. Socialism is a forced exchange of goods, services and ideas with the individual being oppressed for the benefit of the collective. In one philosophy using force to control others is seen as immoral, the other sees the use of force as reasonable for the benefit of the collective.
No look to what Jesus said about how to treat others.
Matthew 5:38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Luke 6:27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
When Jesus is talking which person is the christian. The one striking the cheek, or the one getting struck? The one taking the cloak or the one getting stolen from? The one forcing someone to walk the mile, or the one being forced? The one who is failing to pay, or the one instructed to not expect the debt to be paid?
Based upon these principles, how can a christian be the aggressor that Jesus is talking about. We are supposed to be the ones refraining to use force even when force is justified. So how can we, as christians, initiate force against theres? How can we write laws that require the violence of the state be used against people when they are hurting no one? The ideas of socialism require the violence of the state to be used against individuals to force property from individuals and to force individuals to do things and not do things that harm no one. Even to use force to stop people from helping others because it is outside of the regulation of the state.
If collectives and communes are voluntary, you are in a free market, they are voluntary partnerships. But when they are forced, it is socialized and government forced through violence.
The bottom line is this. Christians should not be using violence to force anybody to do anything. Should not be using force to stop them from sinning as long as they are not directly harming anyone, should not use force to punish, and should not use force to collect on debts. All those things are what the government does. So be careful what you vote for and who you vote for, because when you vote for the state to use force, you are using force and are responsible for the harm done.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Hi again Itty-Bitty Girl,
In response to my earlier question regarding how you were going to provide for your personal welfare and survival, you indicated:
quote:
I can acquire it by buying or selling.
Since you can't sell what you don't own, what do you have to sell and how long will its value enable you to survive?
I will guess that you probably don't have much to sell except your labor. When you do that, as you probably have, you discover that it is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, and they seldom offer any guarantees for any life-time contracts. When you sell your labor to a willing buyer, that makes you an "employee" and not a "slave"! There is a big difference!!!
What can you afford to buy that is going to enable you to survive? Please understand that you can only buy what your cash on hand and credit is going to enable you to buy in the market place. That will be determined by what you are able to acquire, receive as gifts or an inheritance, save, or enhanced by your wise history of spending.
I'm sorry to hear about your dad. He apparently was a hard worker and a good provider. But I think that he made some comments about socialism that are questionable, as you indicate:
quote:
My dad told me that with a socialist government, “there would be no point in working with everything free”, or something like that
My friend, there is nothing "free" in the "jungle" of this market place, no matter what system of government is in place! Socialism may reduce the resources that you have to buy, but they are not "free". And in the process of living under it, your freedoms to buy and sell as you might wish to do are directly reduced.
My friend no one in this world was born with the RIGHT to a job or a line of credit. Don't be too eager to surrender your personal freedoms as a citizen in this land of great opportunity for the bondage of socialism. Please give my questions your careful thought. You have some valuable lessons to learn, probably like my grandchildren.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I feel sad over what you said. Life is hard on everyone in different ways. Yet, I am also relieved for you that it turned out as it did, instead of worse, concerning your dad. But i am sorry for what was taken from you by the state, or enduring condition of your dad.
You seem understanding, as revealed by your statement about his Nam experience. I didn't go. They cut off the draft right when i could feel their breath down my neck. Those whom i knew through friends, usually the older brothers, were seriously afflicted by that war. It was apparent. I feel sad for him too.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
It is hard for me to believe that you believe that you are Christian. You cannot favor both your Christianity and oppression. (For that matter, i don't even see how a democrat believes that he or she is Christian? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) It just doesn't add up.)
I used to be a Democrat, now I am an independent. With capitalism, people are oppressed too. With these secular government systems, someone is bound to get hurt.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Sorry about your father. Are you from a big family? What was he like?
Not a big family, I have one brother and one sister. We are taking the death of our dad pretty well. The cancer was kind of a blessing in disguise. You see, my dad used to be an alcoholic, but when he was diagnosed with cancer, that all changed. He turned from his old ways and sobered up. He was sober all of the time and when he went to chemo at a VA hospital (he was a Vietnam vet) I would talk politics to him. I experienced how wise he was. I also told him about socialism. My dad told me that with a socialist government, “there would be no point in working with everything free”, or something like that.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
It is hard for me to believe that you believe that you are Christian. You cannot favor both your Christianity and oppression. (For that matter, i don't even see how a democrat believes that he or she is Christian? It just doesn't add up.)
Someone you know and love will suffer because of your ideaology, and i don't mean trivially. It will be too late for them, and everyone by the time you understand that. Keep looking up, for redemption is near. He is anyone's only way out.
Sorry about your father. Are you from a big family? What was he like?
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
I don't see what is so bad about socialism. I've heard the arguments in favor of capitalism but I disagree. If this country is headed toward socialism then it is headed in the right direction as far as I am concerned. I'm hopping on the socialism bandwagon because it sounds good to me.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Now back to your opening statement: quote:
The American labor force is exploited.
It is not so! First of all, they are lucky to have the opportunity to work, which our system of government makes to be a higher probability of than another system would. (Look at our economy compared to what Europe's was before we started our socialist decline).
Then too, they (anyone) could change jobs. That is a huge privilege which some countries don't have.
Also, we have the unions, which i consider abusive, but nevertheless i understand their purpose.
You deserve nothing at the expense of another as though you can 'demand' it. It is good, healthy, and Kingdom-like when people voluntarily provide, or accomodate such necessities of neighbors, but you deserve nothing 'on demand' at the expense of another, whatsoever, period! (Especially if you consider it in the light of the evolutionist, "Survival of the fittest!") If, for example however, every working person in the U.S. donated ten dollars a month to healthcare, every major need would be well over accomodated voluntarily. This doesn't take into account the drain on the system by those who abuse the system for every little pain an ache, lawsuit, or petty need for mere attention and runaway r&d costs (which is of perhaps, questionable moral concern; for it is more blessed to give than receive, even if giving just a little!).
Unfortunately government legislates 'voluntary' until it is manditory. This is the description of 'Big Government' which we in this country prefer to avoid. We are free to prevent this however, and socialism, making manditory what we could voluntarily accomodate, is just that!!!!!!
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
So many good points are made in these discussions; however, they are sometimes invisible to the readers. The logic is sometimes so powerful as to be a conversation stopper, yet the conversation carries on in lameness. It is hard to understand why but......
So you said: quote:
but I digress... Anyway, I am not the only one with this thinking, many youth feel this way. The youth are the future of this country.
This is exactly why i said: quote:
Your attitude is the curse of the nation that will fell it!
It is a given.
What i would suggest to you is to go live in Haiti, or Africa, since you believe as you do. You would get an entirely different perspective of this country and what it could have been apart from the wisdom of its founding fathers.
By the way, opinions don't count in totalitarian governments. I said that already also.
You don't have 'rights'. These are called entitlements, and you (plural) are not entitled to anything that you do not work for (in worldly speak, not in Kingdom parlance. Letz keep them separate!).
If you think so, look at Castro. He thinks that he is entitled to the lives of those Cubans! Do you agree! So much for opinion! His stinks, but he would love you.
I am glad you are taking this so bravely.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
You write about workers as "slaves" because they are
quote:
A labor force that is denied access to other sources of income through the private ownership of land and factories
No, that is a way that the labor force is exploited, not why workers are considered slaves. I write about workers as slaves because they labor and are toilers. A slave is toiler and a toiler is a worker.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
What "other sources" of income do you have in mind in addition to that which can be provided by individuals who are able to acquire enough resources and capital funds to employ others. There are only two sources of income, or jobs, in this "jungle": that which is provided by private entrepreneurs or that which is provided by one's government.
Traders buy and/or sell economic goods for profit; they are self-employed and are not slaves. I forgot about them. They also own themselves. This is another source of income. A person does not have to sell their labor unless they have no choice; a person can sell their wealth or assets if they have them. Assets are goods. A person cannot do this when they have little to or no wealth whatsoever. Free enterprise allows private individuals to own most of the wealth of the country.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
You write that quote:
A slave can choose his or her master
What gives you that idea? I don't think that is true anywhere in the world or in any time in human history.
It’s true that a slave can choose his or her master, unless it’s chattel slavery or some cases of indentured servitude.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
1. What is the nature and extent of your responsibilities for your personal welfare and survival in the world?
This is a tough question, but I will say that it is to either buy or sell.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
2. How are you going to acquire what you need for these matters beyond what you already have?
I can acquire it by buying or selling.
I hope those are good answers to the two questions, I just don’t know if I get what you are asking.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Hello Itty-Bitty Girl,
I tried to reply to your last message last night, but my message wasn't sent and somehow it got lost in a computer glitch and I couldn't retreve it. Anyway, I'll try to reply again.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand my question regarding the "responsibilities" of persons for their own care and that of their dependants. There are a whole lot of other individuals in our society and world who don't understand this matter.
I'll try to put it very simply: everything you don't earn in this life you are given by someone else, and the basic resources that you needed to survive during your childhood and probably until you were "old enough" to be on your own (maybe at the age of 18)were given to you. This is in accord with the laws of the "jungle" into which every human being is born.
Governments are organized and managed by people in different parts of the world to enable them to provide resources and services that they can't provide for themselves on their own, but none of these governments, regardless of their form, are perfectly able to meet everyone's needs, particularly the need to be FREE. Socialism is just one of these forms of government.
You write about workers as "slaves" because they are
quote:
A labor force that is denied access to other sources of income through the private ownership of land and factories
What "other sources" of income do you have in mind in addition to that which can be provided by individuals who are able to acquire enough resources and capital funds to employ others. There are only two sources of income, or jobs, in this "jungle": that which is provided by private entrepreneurs or that which is provided by one's government.
You write that quote:
A slave can choose his or her master
What gives you that idea? I don't think that is true anywhere in the world or in any time in human history.
I encourage you to engage in some thorough study of world-wide economic systems, particulary that of a "free market" economy where individuals are given a lot of choices as to how they want to "earn" enough money to provide the necessities that will enable them to "survive" in this "jungle" and even perhaps to be somewhat "comfortable".
Who do you expect is going to give you what you need to "survive"? Who do you want to tell you where you have to live and what job you are going to have to do in order to receive what you need to "survive"?
You write:
quote:
If you sell your labor to survive, you are a slave.
What else do you have to "sell" that you haven't acquired from your own business efforts or been given? Some young girls and boys get caught in situations where all they have to "sell" are their bodies, so they end up in prostitution. Others get involved in selling substances that are not legally to be acquired or sold, but this is part of the challenge of learning to "survive" in a "jungle".
Please understand that my comments and questions are not personal criticisms of you. There are a whole lot of individuals who don't understand these matters in our world.
I'll leave you for now with these questions:
1. What is the nature and extent of your responsibilities for your personal welfare and survival in the world?
2. How are you going to acquire what you need for these matters beyond what you already have?
I hope that some other viewers will join us in this discussion. Have a good day.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
What document indicates that he and us had a right to health care? What act of congress quaranteed him his job and the benefits that it provided for us, including our house?
No document is needed to validate a human right, I believe they are based on opinion. Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms that all humans are entitled to. They are based on a person’s view, or belief. Examples of rights and freedoms that are often thought of as human rights are the right to quality education, housing and healthcare. I believe that quality education, housing and healthcare are basic human rights.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
He was not a "slave" to the owner of that factory. They did not have to give him a job, and they had no guarantees on a profit for the investments that they made in the factory and its workers.
A slave can choose his or her master. A slave can be one that is completely subservient to a controlling influence, and the slave can choose that influence. It does not matter if the factory owner had no guarantees on profit, what matters is that the owner makes a profit off of an exploited labor force; a labor force that had no choice but to work to survive although they had a choice who to work for. A labor force that is denied access to other sources of income through the private ownership of land and factories.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
Workers are not "slaves", at least not officially in America, but they do need to be able to market themselves to someone who is willing to employ them or to "go into business" for themselves. In either case there are a lot of risks involved. I know because I've been down that road and I've seen the risks that it presents to my sons.
Workers are slaves in America. A slave is nothing but a toiler, and a toiler is nothing but worker. In America, you can be a slave and/or an owner of one. If you sell your labor to survive, you are a slave. If you buy labor, then you own one.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
What are the responsibilities of individuals for their own welfare and that of their dependants?
People are responsible for their lives and the lives of their dependants. I don't know if that is a good answer, I just don't seem to understand the question.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Itty-Bitty Girl,
I was born in 1931 during a period in our history that is known as the "great depression". My father had a good job in a furniture factory where he had arised to become an officer of the company after starting out as an office boy. He only had a high school education, but he provided a modest house for my mother and younger brother and I. He didn't make enough money, even with his status in the company, to afford a car, so for many years we got around town on public transportation. I don't think that he had any health insurance, but both my brother and I got regular dental and doctor care, including braces, and my mother got regular shots for her hay fever and asthma. He had enough money to give me some help with expenses for college, but not for my brother. We both had to work for our educations beyond high school.
What document indicates that he and us had a right to health care? What act of congress quaranteed him his job and the benefits that it provided for us, including our house?
He was not a "slave" to the owner of that factory. They did not have to give him a job, and they had no guarantees on a profit for the investments that they made in the factory and its workers. The factory owners had to buy their resources from someone else. They may not "sell labor", but they had to "sell" their products to someone who was not being forced by anyone to buy them. Workers are not "slaves", at least not officially in America, but they do need to be able to market themselves to someone who is willing to employ them or to "go into business" for themselves. In either case there are a lot of risks involved. I know because I've been down that road and I've seen the risks that it presents to my sons.
I would invite you to spend some time in a basic study of civics and the hard work that provided the foundation for much of what you have as a part of the "American dream". It didn't come from a lot of government programs with guarantees for individual rights. What are the responsibilities of individuals for their own welfare and that of their dependants?
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
These responsibilities do not include the following, which are the private responsibilities of individuals:
1. Health care
2. Housing
3. Employment
Quality healthcare, housing and education are basic human rights that are being constantly denied to many people. Employment by factory/business owners is to be exploited for labor and is to become the slave to the will of that owner. Through the private ownership of land and factories, the worker is denied access to other sources of income. They have little or no wealth and have no choice but to work for wages to survive, while the owner has all the wealth and does not have to sell labor.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
It might help in this discussion to recognize that the basic responsibilities of any level of government are to provide services for citizens that they cannot provide for themselves through their own responsibile efforts. These include the following:
1. Safety from physical and mental harm from others that will be provided by:
a. Military and police forces
b. Laws regarding public behavior and the treatment of others as well as building codes, the distribution of food, the practice of medicine, and transportation.
c. Courts and judges to provide for justice and jails and prisons to house offenders of these laws.
d. Agencies and elected officials at local, county, state, and national levels to provide for and to manage the necessary resources for this safety.
2. Education for children and youth provided through public schools and teachers with approved curriculum and performance standards.
3. Standard currency to enable citizens to engage in commerce with money being issued by the Federal government that is backed by resources of recognizable world-wide value.
These responsibilities do not include the following, which are the private responsibilities of individuals:
1. Health care
2. Housing
3. Employment
4. Retirement
Please note that there are very few politicians and other public officials who are talking much about these responsibilities of us private citizens. This summary may not be complete, but I think that it is fairly reasonable. I'm open to your feedback.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
And i am more or less sorry to be mean, but, you make me to feel a weakness that i do not like, and a little sickly. Your attitude is the curse of the nation that will fell it. Was it Kruchev that said: "We will take you without firing a shot!" This is dead serious, and as i said, it takes a true dummy to underestimate the seriousness and tragedy of the fallacy of your thinking. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I take no offense to you, you have been kind and patient with me. Besides, you were born in 53, the same year my dad was born (Died January of this year of Cancer) so that kind of reminded me of him when I looked at your profile, but I digress... Anyway, I am not the only one with this thinking, many youth feel this way. The youth are the future of this country. I just cannot see what is so bad about quality healthcare and education for all just for being born. It there something wrong with members of my generation for embracing this idea?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
I did not say that force was moral or immoral; all I said was that if you obey the law, then force will not be necessary.
![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif) I recall that i said that democracy will not work in an amoral environment; then there will necessarily, i'm afraid, need to be violent enforcement, domination of the masses, which socialism is. (It is better observed in (or described by) the no-holds-barred communist implementation.) If it will not be necessary in the case you make, then certainly it will not be necessary in the case of democracy. In fact, the suggestion you make concerning socialism is passivly violent, and would become openly so.
quote:
Socialism or capitalism does not equal freedom, but to me, socialism is better than capitalism.
And i am more or less sorry to be mean, but, you make me to feel a weakness that i do not like, and a little sickly. Your attitude is the curse of the nation that will fell it. Was it Kruchev that said: "We will take you without firing a shot!" This is dead serious, and as i said, it takes a true dummy to underestimate the seriousness and tragedy of the fallacy of your thinking.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
If I have mixed my labor with natural resources, how do have a right to my labor? To take my property is to take my labor. To force me to teach someone it to take my labor. To force me to treat someone's wounds is taking my labor. If you have the right to take the extension of myself, my labor, is it not you that are asserting ownership over me rather than allowing me to be a free man and live my own life to apply my labor as I see fit and to keep the fruits of that labor? There is were the idea that socialism equals freedom fails.
Socialism or capitalism does not equal freedom, but to me, socialism is better than capitalism. To take private ownership away is not to take labor away. Everyone has to work somewhere if they don’t own land or factories, if they don’t work they don’t survive. People have to work. It is force. The factory owner buys the labor, because the worker has no choice but to sell it to survive. It is the factory owner that asserts ownership over the worker.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
Also the idea that some people get together and create a law that somehow equates to a moral use of force makes not sense.
I did not say that force was moral or immoral, all I said was that if you obey the law, then force will not be necessary. Look at the desegregation of schools and lunch counters; it took force of the federal government to do that with noncompliant state governments and individuals fighting them every step of the way.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
If I have mixed my labor with natural resources, how do have a right to my labor? To take my property is to take my labor. To force me to teach someone it to take my labor. To force me to treat someone's wounds is taking my labor. If you have the right to take the extension of myself, my labor, is it not you that are asserting ownership over me rather than allowing me to be a free man and live my own life to apply my labor as I see fit and to keep the fruits of that labor? There is were the idea that socialism equals freedom fails. Also the idea that some people get together and create a law that somehow equates to a moral use of force makes not sense. You can see countless atrocities committed by government and they all were done by law. Man's law is nothing but words on paper. It never justifies force outside of what is allowed for in the Bible and its hard to find any justification of force. Especially in regards into taking what you want and forcing people to do things. We are called not to rest the evil man when they force use to carry their burden for a mile, not to be the one doing the forcing.
But rather than discuss the morality of property, which we seem to disagree on, a better discusion is whether or not we should be using violence to force these beliefs on others. I hope you would see that using violence to take private property or to take common property is against Christ's teachings.
What this comes down to is deciding what you are going to do and how that lines up with Christ's teachings, as in the end we are only responsible for our own actions. Are you going to vote for the violence of the state to be used against others or against it. As I see it if a law is not repealing an existing law, it should be voted against to halt the violence of the state. If a politician wants to do anything other than eliminate as much of the state as they can the should be voted against to protect others from the aggression of the state. Just think about this every time a politician wants to do this or that. It may seem like good things, education, social security, medical care, military strength, border walls, ect.... but all those things will be done by threatening violence to get them done. And that is not Christ like.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
My generation seems to be leaning toward socialism, and I don't think that socialism is a bad idea.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
This is the problem. Self ownership is foundation a free society is based upon. Collectivism is in direct contrast to self ownership and is in opposition to freedom. The ideas of self ownership come from the idea that man should not be owned by any other man and should be free of any other person or group asserting ownership over them. Collectivism asserts ownership over the individual where the individual no longer owns himself, but is a slave to will of the collective.
I could make the same argument in favor of collectivism, saying that collectivism is what a free society is based on, with private enterprise society is not free. Private enterprise asserts ownership over an individual where the individual no longer owns himself (or herself), but is a slave to the will of the factory owner.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
This is the problem. To claim that everyone has a right to something, requires someone else to be forced to provide it, and now that individual no longer owns themselves.
To claim that quality healthcare and education are not human rights, requires a worker (who does not own land or factories) to be forced to work for enough wages to provide quality healthcare and education for himself (of herself), and now that worker does no longer owns himself (or herself), the factory owner who buys the labor owns the individual.
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
And the biggest problem with all of this is that it is all done through the violence of the state. And to force your neighbor at the point of a gun to take from them, or force them to do something is in no way loving.
No one takes anything by force unless the neighbor is noncompliant with the law. If the law says give it up, then give it up or they will come in and take it. Man’s law is secular, not spiritual. Man's law does not go by the laws of Jesus.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Private ownership of land, and business, is single handedly responsible for our prosperity under God, making us, to date anyway, the most prosperous and powerful land of our age.
I am leaning toward socialism, not communism. A few rich men (or women) own most of the wealth of this country. They are the people prospering with the wealth, not the common man (or woman). Private ownership of land denies workers access to other sources of income, forcing them to work for wages to survive. It sounds like slavery. Some people can’t even make enough money to survive in America.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Nobody is deprived of rights in this country.
Quality Healthcare, Education and even Housing is a human right denied to many people.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
What we got in this country was the right and the ability to work for it. Many were sucessful.
And many more were not successful, what about them?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Nicely said. Thanks!
Think about a country like Cambodia, where literally millions were killed because they didn't, in Pol Pot's opinion, fit the collective.
I watched a program recently where they went in to administer eye surgery to people who would not otherwise get it, because all of the money in the country went to its leader, and his military. It was flooring for me to watch these people pay respect to their leader for what outside volunteers had given them. They were clearly scared for their lives, to the extent that they worshiped the leader literally as God like. In fear for their existance, they wrongfully gave the respect to Kim.
It is terrible to live in fear, and that is what is coming worldwide, soon. Also, socialism leads to deeper and more violent loss of rights, rather than to establishment of benifit.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
This is the problem. Self ownership is foundation a free society is based upon. Collectivism is in direct contrast to self ownership and is in opposition to freedom. The ideas of self ownership come from the idea that man should not be owned by any other man and should be free of any other person or group asserting ownership over them. Collectivism asserts ownership over the individual where the individual no longer owns himself, but is a slave to will of the collective.
That is why many of our founders understood that the only moral role of government is to defend life, liberty and property. But to claim that services like education and health care are human rights, then that means that the ideas of self ownership that are defined as an individuals life, liberty and property, must be infringed upon to force them to provide education or health care for someone else. This is the problem. To claim that everyone has a right to something, requires someone else to be forced to provide it, and now that individual no longer owns themselves.
And the biggest problem with all of this is that it is all done through the violence of the state. And to force your neighbor at the point of a gun to take from them, or force them to do something is in no way loving.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Let me say it another way: None of the ideals that we hold in this country will work if we are amoral. It is a key ingredient to success. Without it, there is only one way that it can go: Communist!
To say that private ownership has to go is blasphemy of our land, and its formal establishment. I am not about to try to convince you about something that should be obvious! I would just have to be completely rude and say that that is stupid to hold that position. Private ownership of land, and business, is single handedly responsible for our prosperity under God, making us, to date anyway, the most prosperous and powerful land of our age. I am sorry to see it so short lived.
Nobody is deprived of rights in this country. It is made harder for some, unfairly so, but it is not nonexistant.
When this country was founded, those people did not even have the right to survive! How can they have had rights to health care, two healthy grandfathers, and a pig farm, or you name it. They didn't. No one does. What we got in this country was the right and the ability to work for it. Many were sucessful. Add to that a properly functioning Christian community, without wicked prejudices, and everyone would have been well off. The failure here was of the Church, not the Country.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Nothing will work in an amoral society.
Why will nothing work?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
I believe that we are free to collective and private ownership in the U.S. today. Private ownership has to go. Quality Healthcare and Education are basic human rights, this country still continues to deprive people of their human rights. It really is sickening. These are my political beliefs, but are they really that misguided and in the wrong direction? If so, try to lead me into the right direction (no pun intended).
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
We are free here to have collective ownership.
The concept of free enterprise is a biblical one. Our country is based on Old Testament principles. I wish i was adequate to discribe them.
Healthcare is not a right! But it is more or less a necessity. Originally, insurance started in the colonies. Everyone contributed together for the sake of the unpredictable few who would fall ill. It has moved from there to other things.
Nothing will work in an amoral society.
Though not perfect, free enterprise is better.
America was no doubt the answer to much prayer. The government that we escaped from taxed men till they bled. It made decisions for the people, like their religion for example. That is domination.
Anything entrusted to the government to run becomes top heavy. They can hire as many people as they want, and tax you to pay for them. They can drag their feet rather than produce because there is no incentive. Their check is guaranteed, and retirement too.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrianGrass1234:
Look to what he said were the greatest commands. Love God with all you have and love your neighbor as yourself. Socialism is incompatible with the later command as it requires the violence of the state to forcibly extract property from one person to be given to another or to be used to provide good and/or services to others. The same goes for any function of the state when it is funded through coercion.
This is because socialism is political; it is secular, like capitalism. What is worldly is not spiritual at all.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
I am going to be mean and ask, what did they teach you in school? It clearly was out of a socialist mindset (which is common in school now).
No way. In high school my teachers were as right wing and as pro capitalism as you can get. I just didn’t listen to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Socialism is deceptive. It creeps up on people with a promise of a better way for all. Dummies buy into it. Then if bought into, all people suffer.
Why do you have to be a dummy to buy into the promise of a better way for all? How can all people suffer from decent healthcare and education?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
The best distinction that can be drawn between what we now have (as yet) in this country, and what socialist have, can be illustrated by the elementary fact, that in a socialist environment the government owns you. Ponder it. America is trying to head there, but in spite of its shortcomings it is yet a long way from that demise. If a government owns you, they tell you what to do. Period. You have no creative input, and if you try, they consider it a rebellion and crush you.
That sounds more communist than socialist. I was talking about collective ownership of the goods, not government ownership of the goods.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Someone needs to help you rethink the comment made in your opening statements. It is misguided.
How is it misguided? The opening statements are what socialism is all about. No private ownership of land and factories. No privatized healthcare and education.
It sounds nice to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
God's Kingdom is not of this world. It is not fair to compare the Kingdom of God with any earthly kingdom.
And I won’t do that. No earthy kingdom compares to the Kingdom of God.
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
It has not help any other nation that has ever adopted it, why should anyone presume it will help us?
Capitalism has not helped any other nation either, yet it is still in America and it has not helped us. So why not try another system?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Amen Brian,
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
What works or not is not the question you should ask when discussing the actions of the state, but what is moral or not.
As christians we are held to what Christ has taught use in how we associate with other people, christian or not. Look to what he said were the greatest commands. Love God with all you have and love your neighbor as yourself. Socialism is incompatible with the later command as it requires the violence of the state to forcibly extract property from one person to be given to another or to be used to provide good and/or services to others. The same goes for any function of the state when it is funded through coercion.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I am going to be mean and ask, what did they teach you in school? It clearly was out of a socialist mindset (which is common in school now). Socialism is deceptive. It creeps up on people with a promise of a better way for all. Dummies buy into it. Then if bought into, all people suffer.
The best distinction that can be drawn between what we now have (as yet) in this country, and what socialist have, can be illustrated by the elementary fact, that in a socialist environment the government owns you. Ponder it. America is trying to head there, but in spite of its shortcomings it is yet a long way from that demise. If a government owns you, they tell you what to do. Period. You have no creative input, and if you try, they consider it a rebellion and crush you.
You need to get an education about what has befallen many a man and woman in the Soviet system, and about their prisons, not to mention several other countries. Someone needs to help you rethink the comment made in your opening statements. It is misguided.
God's Kingdom is not of this world. It is not fair to compare the Kingdom of God with any earthly kingdom. God's Kingdom functions within all of these countries, usually in spite of their government. But among nations, on the worldly level, ours is well blessed until such an day as socialist, who are soft communist, persuade people to be stupid and forfeit the gift that resides here, in favor of whatever they think it is that they will gain.
And this may very well be the case if America is the Babylon referred to in Revelations. Let it be noted that this Babylon degrades to the point that they kill the prophets, like becausely and others who post here; and then God destroys the place.
Who do you want to own you? Who do you want to tell you when to come and go, what to learn, and what your occupation will be? Your religion will defile you in their sight. Therefore, you will not be allowed to have faith.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
It has not help any other nation that has ever adopted it, why should anyone presume it will help us?
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
If socialism comes to the United States of America, will it help or hurt the country?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Itty-Bitty Girl
Advanced Member
Member # 4579
|
posted
The American labor force is exploited. Workers are denied access to other sources of income through the private ownership of land and factories; they have no choice but to work for wages to survive. The land and factories should not be owned by private individuals, but by the people who work them. The goal of labor should be to improve the quality of life for all. Quality education and healthcare should not be things that one pays for individually (or privatized), they should be paid for by all members of society and denied to no one. The factor deciding whether a person gets decent working and living conditions, the decent schools and healthcare- comes down to whether the person is a “have” or a “have not”. The system that treats people this way is the system that needs to be destroyed, so that a new one can be put in place that treats all people in a humane manner. Such decent treatment and respect should be given to all just for being born.
A change is needed, but should a change as drastic as bringing socialism to America take place? Is this the right way of thinking? If so, do you think socialism will work in the U.S.?
Posts: 1051 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
