1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Aug 3, 2009.

  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A parable is a story not a lie. A lie is a deliberate falsehood with no intention of convey a spiritual truth.



     
    #41 Crabtownboy, Aug 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2009
  2. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess we are all to assume that the fixation on the "urban legend" angle is to hide the fact that they have no response for the points made in the OP.

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

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, crabby is simply following the obamamites playbook.

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

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

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

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    In one of my classes, the professor had a game we would be graded on. We would compete one-on-one with another classmate. If we each chose Option 1, we would both get a "D". If we both chose Option 2, we would both get a "B". If one guy chooses Option 1, and the other guy chooses Option 2. The one guy gets an "A" and the other guy gets an "F".

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



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

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the contrary, in the same post where I said, "The OP is an urban legend, and not a true story", I also said "it makes a point that has the ring of truth." I got berated by the poster for noting the fact that the OP was an urban legend, and my concurrence with the context was ignored.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You speak of that which you know nothing about. This country was not founded on socialism therefore it is wrong in the US. All the Federal spending is not constitutional. And refusal to apply ungodly and uncosntitutional socialism does not add up to a laissez-faire economy. It is not an either or proposition.
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Neither pure socialism nor pure democracy will work. Democracy with social responsibility, however, serves the people and does work.

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

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The united states is not a democracy. And it was founded on little fed activity and primarily states rights. And England has been going down hill ever since.
     
  9. Paul Brand

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would probably define me as a socialist, although I would not define myself as such, nor would I define Obama as a socialist. Your classroom example suggests that Obama believes in government re-distribution of all wealth. Well, that's not really all that close to reality. Even with the existing and modest re-distribution of wealth, the top income earners still earn huge multiples of that of lower income earners. I think the rich benefit with a social safety net, which turns out to be rather counter-cyclical in nature, and quite efficient economically.

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

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

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus told his people to feed, clothe, and care for the poor. He never said to do this by stealing from others, and you cannot call raising taxes to distribute welfare & food stamps following his command.

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

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bro. To clarify I didn't say Jesus was in favor of government re-distribution of wealth. But, I am saying that Jesus is in favour of re-distribution of wealth, and I think Jesus reminds us that our property is not our own, but the Earth is the Lord's. I don't quite believe like the Libertarians often do that property rights are the most fundamental of rights. I'm not that offended if the government takes a portion of my income to give it to those who need it more. You can call it stealing, but I think it addresses a more fundamental right.

    As I said before, I'm not a socialist. Neither is Obama, neither is my professor, and neither is the Prisoner's Dilemma. As I mentioned in the Prisoner's Dilemma post, I was applying the Dilemma to the lack of efficiency in a laissez-faire economy. Perhaps you missed that part?
    That parable is not about economics. But, if you think it is, what do you think of the Laborers in the Vineyard? Everyone got the same wage, even though some worked harder than others.
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obama is not merely a socialist he is a marxist. And I would suggest you do research on his positions his friends and political allies as well as his mentors before arguing to the contrary.

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

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

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

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

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Forced" redistribution?

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

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'd like to see some biblical evidence.

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

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

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

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

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

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

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

    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.
     
  16. Paul Brand

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus says you should give to the poor. That would be re-distribution of wealth. Or consider the book of Acts, where the Chrisitans didn't consider their property their own, but shared freely with those in need.
     
  17. Paul Brand

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Corporations do the same thing. So, I don't really see how you can condone capitalism either. Actually, it requires government to regulate those things, so if you are anti-government, you don't have much of a mechanism to stop corruption. And to clarify, I'm not saying that just any government is satisfactory. In a democracy, the voting power is well distributed, but it can still be corrupt, becuase people elect corrupt politicians, and people can't always discern who is trustworthy.



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

    Paul Brand New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I have said a few times, Jesus doesn't have anything to say about that. Or at least, nothing that I can think of. I mean, he did say you should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and that meant you should pay your taxes, but that's neither here nor there.
     
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus says to feed the poor, clothe the poor, and care for the infirm. Their is no command from Christ to use other people's money to do this. Also, the Bible forbids me to brag about my giving, suffice to say I will not defend myself against charges that I don't give enough. You think what you want to.
     
  20. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The best mechanism to stop corruption is an informed public.
     
Loading...