Socialism in America

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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)?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

This is a great response. Thanks for your input.