Of the 6.8 billion people walking this planet, a little over 1 billion of them don't have enough to eat.
With all of the conveniences and marvels of our modern world, large-scale preventable human misery still has not gone the way of the dinosaur.
Who is to blame? What is to be done??
Of those who care to seriously address this issue, why is it that not everyone can agree on the solution? Should people be left to their own devices and let "survival of the fittest" determine who wins and loses in this life? Should governments step in and come to the rescue of those in need? What role can or should you and I play in meeting the needs of the poor and afflicted?
In this article I will share my personal convictions regarding the care of the poor and needy. I will draw upon my own experience with being partially-disabled for 6 years in my young adulthood, and being one who would qualify as poor and needy. I will also draw upon my experiences living in Russia in the late 90's and my extensive graduate-level research on the Soviet Union, as well as my understanding of the Bible and Christian philosophy.
Whether or not you agree with the arguments I lay out here, I hope that you will at the very least take them as coming from one who knows what it is to rely on someone else for my daily bread, and who has studied and seen some of the dangers inherent in philosophies popular in our world over the past century plus, including the prominent philosophy of Socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this article, I will specifically address my comments to people of the Christian faith living the United States of America who applaud our nation's incremental Socialist agenda, who seek to enliven and expand government programs to care for the poor and needy.
I first must commend you for your active desire to see the downtrodden cared for. You show more dedication to the poor than many in your faith, "laissez faire" Christians who bemoan government involvement with welfare programs but who themselves do little to alleviate the suffering of anyone. These Christians are waiting to make it big before giving to the poor. They are waiting to have all their needs met before looking around them to perceive the pressing needs of others in their vicinity.
Next, I must tell you why I believe Socialism and Christianity to be two incompatible philosophies.
Many well-meaning Christians look upon a Socialist government and get warm fuzzies in their stomach thinking of all the people that are cared for.
But Socialism is wholly incompatible with the Christian principles of free will and personal responsibility to care for the widow, the orphan, the sick, and the poor.
What reward is there in heaven for the Christian who merely pays their taxes in a welfare state, but does nothing of their own initiative to succor the needy?
“We shall prove to them that they are nothing but weak, pathetic children, but that a child’s happiness is the sweetest of all. They will grow timid and cling to us in fear, like chicks to a hen.”
Christian philosophy asserts that, though fallen, man was created in the image of God and any man or woman is capable of inheriting salvation and all their fondest hopes and dreams from God through the mediation of the Savior, and through making the personal choice to submit to the conditions required for these blessings.
Socialist philosophy assumes that the masses as dumb as children, and they don’t need a god to reach their fondest dreams, but a government to hand out the goodies.
In Christian philosophy, individuals are responsible to care for the needs of the poor, the sick, the widow, and the orphan, but not compelled. Those who rise to the challenge will find themselves on the right hand of God because of their CHOICES, and those who don’t will not receive the blessings reserved for those who do.
In Socialist philosophy, all are compelled to care for the needy whether they want to or not (through taxation), and this care comes through the administration of a notoriously inefficient bureaucracy.
Christian philosophy causes men and women to rise up, work for their sustenance depending oftentimes on faith that help will come if and when it is needed. It is hard, it is risky, but the rewards of making the proper use of God-given free will are great. The consequences of poor choices can be brutal.
Socialist philosophy seeks to soften the blows of consequences to natural laws, both positive consequences – financial abundance for the thrifty, wise, hard-worker -- and negative consequences – poverty to those who break the natural laws that govern abundance.
A life of high stakes -- which this life is whether we want it to be or not -- engenders faith in God for those with a desire to prevail. It is the very difficulties of existence in this realm that allow men and women to develop the faith in God necessary for them to walk back into his presence.
Socialism falsely informs men and women there is another way to reach their ultimate dreams besides faith in any god.
"And men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them.”
Christianity allows men and women the opportunity to make great sacrifices for those in need and reap the blessings as a results, or not makes those sacrifices and miss out on certain blessings.
Socialism steals the show and takes the credit for the care of the poor and needy, ironically leaving fewer people with the means to do great good in this world, as well as with less incentive.
Christianity says there is freedom in trusting in God.
Socialism says there is freedom in trusting in the government.
Christian philosophy depicts a utopian society, a millennium of peace after the Second Coming of Jesus, in which the meek will inherit the earth and the poor in spirit will inherit the kingdom of God, in which kings and queens (the wealthy) will willingly carry the downtrodden on their shoulders and lift them higher than themselves.
Socialist philosophy depicts a utopian society which is a worker’s paradise, a dream for the common man which comes as a result of loyalty to the state and the kings and queens being forced to cough up their wealth to subsidize the poor.
“So, in the end, they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us: ‘Enslave us, but feed us!’ And they will finally understand that freedom and the assurance of daily bread for everyone are two incompatible notions that could never coexist!”
Instead of food stamps and welfare checks given year after year to the same individuals, I would like to see the poor and needy taught to find a need in society they can fill in order to put food on their own tables.
Those who refuse to work should not eat the bread and wear the clothes of the laborer. Those who cannot work due to disability should preferably be cared for by family and friends.
Instead of people clamoring for “universal health care”, I would like to see more doctors, nurses, and healers of all persuasions donate their skills in the care of the sick who can’t afford care.
What about people who fall in between the cracks? Don’t we need a government program in place to take care of all of them?? What about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security – don’t we need these and other programs?
I honestly don’t know about that. All I do know is that continuing our march deeper into the heart of Socialism will only lead to a weaker populace – weaker because of a dependence on government. Weaker because the most productive elements of society lose their incentive and their ability for productivity. Weaker because faith in God becomes less important as faith in a system of government, an entity that completely lacks the power to bring salvation and our fondest dreams, begins to take precedence.
Faith in any system other than the system of God is sure to ultimately bring disappointment to those who possess it. Freedom and personal accountability for how we use our freedom is risky, but there truly is no other way to salvation other than their proper use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Socialism to be the great counterfeit for God's higher law of choosing to consecrate our means and possessions to the poor.
Socialism diminishes the incentive for excellence, is enabling to those it purports to serve, and causes people to trust in government more than they trust in God.
Look at Europe -- faith in God that was such a part of European society in past times has been replaced with widespread secularism! The great cultures of Europe are dying out due to negative population growth. Some have postulated that there is a connection between Socialism and Europe's low birth rate. I don't know about that. But I do know that in the past as well as today, Socialism has led to Communism (indeed, Karl Marx himself saw Socialism as merely a transitional philosophy that naturally would lead to Communism). If you aren't aware of the atrocities that Communist governments have enacted upon their own people, read here.
But some of you may be thinking -- we gave the Christians their chance to feed the hungry. They had a couple thousand years to do away with hunger, and they didn't do it!
You are completely correct. As a whole (with some notable exceptions, however), we have not done our job sufficiently! While there are some who admirably devote a great deal of effort and financial means to care for the poor, there are many more of us who sit back, pay our taxes, pay some tithing and offerings here and there, but are so wrapped up in our own lives that we do little to heed Jesus Christ's admonition to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick.
Fellow Christians and all other good people of the earth, let's take action TODAY. Let's take action now to help someone in need, even if we ourselves are struggling to make ends meet. Let's do so much good that those who promote government programs to care for the poor will be shocked and inspired!
What can you do now? I urge you to sit down and prayerfully consider where you can give of your time and means to bless those in need.
If you can't come up with anything that feels significant, check out this wonderful video made by some friends of mine who are mobilizing a lot of people to each do a little bit!
What can you do now? I urge you to sit down and prayerfully consider where you can give of your time and means to bless those in need.
If you can't come up with anything that feels significant, check out this wonderful video made by some friends of mine who are mobilizing a lot of people to each do a little bit!
The degree to which taking care of the poor and the needy is instituted and administered by government is the degree to which freedom is abdicated.
When individuals, families, and privately-run organizations take it upon themselves to care for the poor, and when this care is given in the name of Jesus Christ, it leads both the giver and receiver back to heaven!
If you are Christian and have read this article, you have been called to action. Choose now to answer the call!
If you are Christian and have read this article, you have been called to action. Choose now to answer the call!
Quotes in italics are taken from the monumental novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
I respectfully disagree, for a number of reasons. Keep in mind, I am a Christian and former homeschooler, and I currently hold a B.A. in Sociology (the only area of study that qualifies one to speak with authority on socialism). I will reply on as many points as I can tonight.
ReplyDelete1. Socialism is in fact not at odds with "free will", as you state in the beginning of your essay. One of the prime components of socialism is worker control of the economy and means of production, a.k.a., democracy. This fact is always overlooked by non-experts. This will also lay the foundation for a rebuttal of much of the rest of your essay. A side note as well: in ancient societies, Israel included, there was a limit to free will in socciety. Whereas U.S. culture teaches us to be whatever we want, in ancient cultures you were expected to fit into a predefined role in your society. It might be said that Karl Marx was more of an individualist than Jesus was.
2. Christians ARE compelled to help those in need. The Bible makes it clear that it's not an option. And it also makes no requirement as to how it should be done, whether by individual or government. Keep in mind that tithing was done even before the days of the Levites, as a way to help the poor (even many Muslim cultures tithe the poor, and it's usually not optional, nor always individual). In essence, your point here is a personal American bias, not a Biblical one.
3. Bureaucracy is not "notoriously inefficient". In fact, it would be impossible to accomplish anything without it. Think I'm wrong? Take a look at Haiti's current situation, in which a weak govenrment and lack of bureaucracy is making their current earthquake crisis much worse. No, the individual is notoriously inefficient, which is why humans organize in the first place.
4. Believe it or not, hard work does not usually lead to success. Exploitation of others does. If you think the consequences of poor choices are brutal, just wait until you see the consequences of an exploited honest day's work.
5. I have to quote this next paragraph of yours(below). It demonstrates the odd and unquestioning adherence you have to the American myth that assumes the poor exist because of poor choices, and the rich because of wise choices (when in fact, it's usually the other way around. See point 4 above):
"Socialist philosophy seeks to soften the blows of consequences to natural laws, both positive consequences – financial abundance for the thrifty, wise, hard-worker -- and negative consequences – poverty to those who break the natural laws that govern abundance."
I think I've shown why the paragraph quoted above is false.
I do need to bed down for the night, but I will finish this tomorrow night, God willing.
-Daniel
I agree with this rebuttal above. It is clear that you are looking at this as a white and black issue when in reality is it a complex one that does not necessarily mean the outcome is as you stated. You make some gross assumptions and then say “I don’t know about that”. You cannot be a Christian and say that taking care of the needy as a society is a socialist agenda. I think your obsession (as always related to communism) skews your views on America.
ReplyDeleteI quote a scripture from your church “Mosiah 4: 16, 19, 24
And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
I do not see how that excludes organized efforts, united order anyone? It is sad that someone who has been at the mercy of others finds only judgment to be handed out to the needy. You clearly do not understand Socialism, Christianity or both.
Ok, I will now finish what I began last night, a point-by-point response. I have also decided to directly quote the paragraphs I'm responding to, to alleviate confusion. Here is the rest of my response:
ReplyDelete"A life of high stakes -- which this life is whether we want it to be or not -- engenders faith in God for those with a desire to prevail. It is the very difficulties of existence in this realm that allow men and women to develop the faith in God necessary for them to walk back into his presence."
-This has nothing to do with social justice. Also, faith in the Bible derived from the Hebrew word 'pistis', which means loyalty based on prior knowledge or evidence. Often it was evidence based on the physical world. I'm not sure what this has to do with socialism or capitalism.
"Socialism falsely informs men and women there is another way to reach their ultimate dreams besides faith in any god."
-So you know the ultimate dreams of each person on the earth? And where is the evidence for your claims above?
"Christianity allows men and women the opportunity to make great sacrifices for those in need and reap the blessings as a results, or not makes those sacrifices and miss out on certain blessings."
-Actually, you are wrong. You can do those things whether or not you are Christian. Also, the Bible makes it clear that there are no earthly blessings for doing the right thing. And further, Christianity does not give one the option of doing the right thing. In fact, the Bible is completely in agreement with socialism in these respects.
"Socialism steals the show and takes the credit for the care of the poor and needy, ironically leaving fewer people with the means to do great good in this world, as well as with less incentive."
-It does? Says who? Only Sarah Palin, maybe. In fact, more people are well off in socialistic societies, so are in a better postion to help others. And when you are not struggling to survive, you have more incentives to help others. If you can prove the contrary, back it up with evidence.
"Christianity says there is freedom in trusting in God."
-Sort of. God also gave us brains, two hands, and two feet. I think He expects us to use those, too.
"Socialism says there is freedom in trusting in the government."
-How so? Seems like it says there is freedom in democracy. But what do I know? I was only a 4.0 student.
"Christian philosophy depicts a utopian society, a millennium of peace after the Second Coming of Jesus, in which the meek will inherit the earth and the poor in spirit will inherit the kingdom of God, in which kings and queens (the wealthy) will willingly carry the downtrodden on their shoulders and lift them higher than themselves."
-Well, the book of Revelation is actually much more complex than that, and you have given but one of several interpretations of it. But that's an entirely different subject for another time.
"Socialist philosophy depicts a utopian society which is a worker’s paradise, a dream for the common man which comes as a result of loyalty to the state and the kings and queens being forced to cough up their wealth to subsidize the poor."
ReplyDelete-That sounds like it was taken from a Sarah Palin speech. No, socialist philosophy only assumes that democracy is better than an aristocracy. And kings and queens who stole wealth from the impoverished workers who created the wealth (the workers subsidizing the kings and queens) will one day rot in hell. The workers created it, so it's theirs.
"Instead of food stamps and welfare checks given year after year to the same individuals, I would like to see the poor and needy taught to find a need in society they can fill in order to put food on their own tables."
-Better yet, force deadbeat employers to raise the wages of the workers who created wealth. Do that, and poverty will be no more. The workers have been giving welfare to their employers for many years (which is anti-Biblical), so it's time for them to give back. Otherwise, we should continue to hand out food stamps.
"Those who refuse to work should not eat the bread and wear the clothes of the laborer. Those who cannot work due to disability should preferably be cared for by family and friends."
-CEO's and the rich are the only non-workers in our society. So I agree that they should not eat bread. But if we will not fight inequality in society, we must live with the consequences: a large population of poor that need a helping hand from the government, since they are powerless to force their employers to raise wages. Are you starting to get the picture?
"Instead of people clamoring for “universal health care”, I would like to see more doctors, nurses, and healers of all persuasions donate their skills in the care of the sick who can’t afford care."
-A nice sentiment, but economically it's not viable. Universal health care is, though.
"What about people who fall in between the cracks? Don’t we need a government program in place to take care of all of them?? What about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security – don’t we need these and other programs?"
-You bet we do. Unless the medieval phenomenon of serfdom is the preference.
"I honestly don’t know about that. All I do know is that continuing our march deeper into the heart of Socialism will only lead to a weaker populace – weaker because of a dependence on government. Weaker because the most productive elements of society lose their incentive and their ability for productivity. Weaker because faith in God becomes less important as faith in a system of government, an entity that completely lacks the power to bring salvation and our fondest dreams, begins to take precedence."
ReplyDelete-eh? We're not actually marching toward socialism. In fact, it's the opposite: we are running full speed over that cliff known as capitalism, leading our nation into permanent serfdom to a rich, non-working, aristocracy. It's anti-Christian, unbiblical, and it will bring future generations to ruin. The poor will work hard for nothing, and the rich will steal it through corporate accounting. Socialism, or something similar, may be our only hope. We need a strong govenment to stand up to corporations and protect us not only from outside threats, but also protect me from you, poor from rich, ect. In socialism, there's incentive to work; in capitalism, what's the use? Your paradigm needs to change, to be more Christ-like.
"Faith in any system other than the system of God is sure to ultimately bring disappointment to those who possess it. Freedom and personal accountability for how we use our freedom is risky, but there truly is no other way to salvation other than their proper use."
-God doesn't have a system, and He's told me He's quite tired of people trying to speak for Him. Ha ha, actually, socialism is probably about the only system He approves of, because all others rely on selfishness, a quality God despises. Captialism is a direct highway to hell, but socialism is a lot like what heaven will be like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe Socialism to be the great counterfeit for God's higher law of choosing to consecrate our means and possessions to the poor."
-Bible verse please? I don't see any support for that claim In fact, it's the opposite: "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." Sounds like Jesus advocates government confiscation of money.
"Socialism diminishes the incentive for excellence, is enabling to those it purports to serve, and causes people to trust in government more than they trust in God."
-Wrong again. Socialism has been proven to increase incentive, which is why all modern nations that seek more socialistic standards are seeing higher living standards than the U.S. Think Sweden.
"Look at Europe -- faith in God that was such a part of European society in past times has been replaced with widespread secularism! The great cultures of Europe are dying out due to negative population growth. Some have postulated that there is a connection between Socialism and Europe's low birth rate. I don't know about that.'
ReplyDelete-Ok, I had to break this paragraph in two for this response. First, how is European culture dying out? If you mean the creation of fancy architecture, that's only because of the abolition of slave labor. Otherwise, it seems the culture is thriving. And low birth rates correspond with high rates of birth control. Look it up. Your point is not only incorrect but irrelevant.
"But I do know that in the past as well as today, Socialism has led to Communism (indeed, Karl Marx himself saw Socialism as merely a transitional philosophy that naturally would lead to Communism). If you aren't aware of the atrocities that Communist governments have enacted upon their own people, read here."
-I know all about the Soviet Union, and your argument is actually a false comparison. Marx predicted communism, but not the Societ Union. In fact, the Soviet Union actually REJECTED the theories of Marx, which is why there was no worker control, no democracy, no true division of powers or wealth. That's why the Soviet Union is usually branded as "State Capitalism", because it used the formula for capitalism rather than socialism. The old Raeganite myth that any socialism will eventually lead to Soviet redux is known as the slippery slope fallacy, and is grounds for rejection in logic. God is not pleased with your lack of study on this subject, and commands you to love Him "with all your heart, soul, MIND, and strength" (Mark 12:30, emphasis mine).
"But some of you may be thinking -- we gave the Christians their chance to feed the hungry. They had a couple thousand years to do away with hunger, and they didn't do it!"
-Because of capitalism (greed). Now is our chance to correct that mistake with a philosophy of socialism (selflessness, God's way).
"You are completely correct. As a whole (with some notable exceptions, however), we have not done our job sufficiently! While there are some who admirably devote a great deal of effort and financial means to care for the poor, there are many more of us who sit back, pay our taxes, pay some tithing and offerings here and there, but are so wrapped up in our own lives that we do little to heed Jesus Christ's admonition to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick."
ReplyDelete-It's hard to care for the poor in the U.S. who are struggling to get by when you are one them (60-75% of the U.S. population according to the economic policy institute). The price of choosing capitalism and rejecting socialism has been a large poor working class and a small rich class of lazy non-workers. Fix the system and your call to action would make more sense. Otherwise, your words are vanity.
"The degree to which taking care of the poor and the needy is instituted and administered by government is the degree to which freedom is abdicated."
-Clever, but untrue. The U.S. has less freedom than other modern nations precisely because we prevent our government from protecting us from CEO's and the rich. We've already abdicated all of our freedoms and our very eternal souls to capitalism (the philosphy of personal greed and selfishness). Now we must lie in the bed we made.
"If you are Christian and have read this article, you have been called to action. Choose now to answer the call!"
-And I have now officially called you out. I apologize if my tone was harsh, but I must rebuke fellow Christians when they are walking in darkness. You are now called to action, choose to answer that call. Where do you start?
I first suggest educating yourself more on socio-economic issues. Take a sociology class, read a book, ect. Learn about other societies. Read statistics. Do your homework and be prepared to reject uneducated biases. God will be pleased if you do this.
Learn more about the Bible and God. Not what your church errantly taught you. Study the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic launguages that were used in the original. Study the society of ancient Israel. Do all of this, and you will better understand Christianity from God's point of view rather than your own. I will be praying for your salvation.
Conclusion: Although every system of governance and economics is amoral (not immoral), the closest one that is compatible with Christianity is socialism. All others, especially capitalism, are virtually incompatible.
-Daniel
True that! as your "brothers and sisters of soul" would say
ReplyDeleteJulie, I must agree with the argument above. You have made a living and a life based solely on "uneducated biases". Glad someone called you out on this.
ReplyDeleteAlthought "humble christian" Daniel's pinko slip is showing, he is in fact, right. Julie, you do not what you are talking about, as usual, but we love you anyways!
ReplyDelete"Pinko Slip"? Sounds like someone needs to lay off fox news and stop smoking the light green stuff.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, he is right. Duh!
I dont watch Fox, ever. but the pinko stuff came on a bit strong, almost as heavy as the faux-christianity. Arameic? sure (roll of the eyes). Che-Dani makes assumptions as Julie does, but they are more on the factual side, sa far as being logical and mostly accurate. its easy to pick on poor Julie, she runs with whatever fight she has that day to save us from ourselves, ignoring logic, history, facts, reality or science...but she means well, take it easy on her, "professor" with a BS.
ReplyDeleteWow -- interesting comments, guys!
ReplyDeleteAcknowledgement - This is some of the worst logic I've seen in a long time. It is taking a great deal of effort to not get personal.
ReplyDeleteI have attempted to separate into blocks. I have put "Julie-" before her statements, "Daniel-" before his, and a line of ***'s after my response. Hopefully, it is readable.
Daniel said...
"I respectfully disagree, for a number of reasons. Keep in mind, I am a Christian and former homeschooler, and I currently hold a B.A. in Sociology (the only area of study that qualifies one to speak with authority on socialism)."
1. The "Argument From Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is one of the first things you learn in high school logic. Since the rest of your argument is based on a fallacy, it is without merit. However, rules aside, I'll continue.
2. To your "authority": Socialism is a philosophical system, an economic system, a political system, or a religious system. As such, any reasonably intelligent person who has studied it can speak with authority on socialism, as may its victims. However, in most socialist regimes, there are those who are "more equal", the elites, who take the position that only "they" may speak with authority on any particular matter. Rubbish.
3. In my experience, the vast majority of Sociology programs are administered and taught by socialists, in what are typically the most socialist departments, in universities where socialism is worshipped. So expecting a Sociologist to speak on Socialism is like expecting someone whose religious education is limited to a lifetime of sunday school teachings at the same church, to speak on comparative religion. Ridiculous on its face.
4. The proper role of the soft/pseudo science of Sociology in this, is to study, explain and predict the macro patterns and trends that emerge under a Socialist paradigm. Patterns such as oppression, citizens spying on each other, the use of force by the government against its citizens, the destruction of personal motivation, shortages and famines created by bureaucracies, purges, thought police, political prisons, mass killings. Socialism *always* resorts to force. Why is that? Answering these questions is the role of Sociology - macro trends and patterns of societies.
5. A BA/BS is of relative value. I once had a programmer working for me who, while able to program quite well, was functionally illiterate and unable to manage most aspects of his life. Again, using the letters as "proof of knowledge" is merely another form of the Argument From Authority".
**************************************
Daniel-
ReplyDelete1. Socialism is in fact not at odds with "free will", as you state in the beginning of your essay. One of the prime components of socialism is worker control of the economy and means of production, a.k.a., democracy. This fact is always overlooked by non-experts. This will also lay the foundation for a rebuttal of much of the rest of your essay. A side note as well: in ancient societies, Israel included, there was a limit to free will in socciety. Whereas U.S. culture teaches us to be whatever we want, in ancient cultures you were expected to fit into a predefined role in your society. It might be said that Karl Marx was more of an individualist than Jesus was.
Socialism is in direct opposition to "free will", since every person is born with an obligation to provide you with your needs. Socialism requires an "other" to provide the so-called "rights" of Socialism - the right to a job, the right to food, the right to a roof, the right to braces for your kid's teeth. Whatever. As far as that goes, yeah, you could call some of what happens "democracy" if there is a vote. However, I would suggest that democracy (rule by the mob) is not a particularly desirable system either. I much prefer a constitutionally defined representative system like we have, that defines and protects the interests of the minority as well as the majority. Still not perfect, but certainly preferable to a mobocracy.
**************************************
Daniel-
3. Bureaucracy is not "notoriously inefficient". In fact, it would be impossible to accomplish anything without it. Think I'm wrong? Take a look at Haiti's current situation, in which a weak govenrment and lack of bureaucracy is making their current earthquake crisis much worse. No, the individual is notoriously inefficient, which is why humans organize in the first place.
Bureaucracies are terribly efficient at doing what they do. They have little flexibility and are notoriously self-sustaining. Humans may organize, but a bureaucracy is merely ONE method of doing so. As we progress beyond systems put in place by the Germans during the early part of the past century, we find that self-directing organizations, neural organizations, self-organizing systems, all sorts of different methods are more efficient, more flexible, more able to respond to changes in the environment, and FAR less concerned with self-perpetuation. Again, not only is it NOT "impossible to accomplish anything without" bureaucracies, there are many methods that are far more preferable, efficient, cost-effective and arguably far more psychologically / spiritually fulfilling to work within than a bureaucracy.
**************************************
Daniel-
4. Believe it or not, hard work does not usually lead to success. Exploitation of others does. If you think the consequences of poor choices are brutal, just wait until you see the consequences of an exploited honest day's work.
That's a pretty sad world-view. I'm glad I don't see myself as a professional victim.
**************************************
Daniel-
ReplyDelete5. I have to quote this next paragraph of yours(below). It demonstrates the odd and unquestioning adherence you have to the American myth that assumes the poor exist because of poor choices, and the rich because of wise choices (when in fact, it's usually the other way around. See point 4 above):
"Socialist philosophy seeks to soften the blows of consequences to natural laws, both positive consequences – financial abundance for the thrifty, wise, hard-worker -- and negative consequences – poverty to those who break the natural laws that govern abundance."
While it is true that luck, being in the right place at the right time, etc. make a HUGE contribution to whether a person becomes wealthy or not, I have seen first hand the result of "poor choices" and how those choices have consequences. I spent a year or so working with people from nearly every income level who had, through ignorance mostly, made choices that led to bankruptcy, divorce, and sometimes crime. Charging 4X4's on a credit card, putting vacations on home equity lines of credit, spending more than you make are not choices that will lead to financial prosperity. I have seen those choices, and I have seen the consequences. Financial literacy is next to logical / analytical thinking in subjects the public school systems fail to teach.
**************************************
Daniel-
I think I've shown why the paragraph quoted above is false.
Actually, no, you haven't. Saying "it isn't so" and providing no empirical or logical evidence is not showing that a statement is false. Using poor logic and stating dogma is not proof. It is merely making noise.
**************************************
Julie-
ReplyDelete"Christianity allows men and women the opportunity to make great sacrifices for those in need and reap the blessings as a results, or not makes those sacrifices and miss out on certain blessings."
Daniel-
-Actually, you are wrong. You can do those things whether or not you are Christian. Also, the Bible makes it clear that there are no earthly blessings for doing the right thing. And further, Christianity does not give one the option of doing the right thing. In fact, the Bible is completely in agreement with socialism in these respects.
The fact that those things can be done outside of Christianity in no way negates or proves her statement false. She said "Christianity ALLOWS ... the opportunity", not "Christianity is the only means". Again, reading comprehension and logical thought would be beneficial here. The statement was an inclusive, not exclusive, statement.
Additionally, it was an opinion - opinions are not required to be either true nor logical. However, if interpreted as an exclusive statement - that only Christianity offers the opportunity to reap Christian blessings, then, yes, what she said is STILL true. Bhuddism does not, and can not, offer one the opportunity to reap Christian blessings in return for sacrifices.
Furthermore, what kind of nonsense is the statement "Christianity does not give one the option of doing the right thing"? Christianity, as defined by Christians, is a system of ethics that guides one in the day to day living of a life as intended by God. Are you saying that the Christian God is not concerned with people doing the right thing? At this point, I find myself in a painting done by Salvadore Dali - words have become rubbery, pliable things that have little or no meaning. It is unreal.
**************************************
Julie-
ReplyDelete"Socialism steals the show and takes the credit for the care of the poor and needy, ironically leaving fewer people with the means to do great good in this world, as well as with less incentive."
Daniel-
-It does? Says who? Only Sarah Palin, maybe. In fact, more people are well off in socialistic societies, so are in a better postion to help others. And when you are not struggling to survive, you have more incentives to help others. If you can prove the contrary, back it up with evidence.
Actually, where is YOUR proof? Having lived in a number of socialist societies, I agree with Julie here. I saw societies where the overall standard of living is well below East LA. I saw elites within those societies living pretty high, but even those didn't rise to a U.S. upper-middle-class suburban standard. And, your reliance on ad-hominem is sad. That said, I've not heard anything from Sarah Palin directly addressing this point, but there are certainly a large number of people and organizations who have said that the standard of living in socialist countries is below their semi-free-market counterparts. The most notable example in recent years was the difference between east and west Berlin. What a stark difference that was.
And since you claim to be such an expert on Israeli society - perhaps you can explain how it is that, in spite of your often made claim that "socialism provides an incentive to work", Russian Jews who emigrate to Israel have to be taught how to work?
**************************************
Julie-
"Socialism says there is freedom in trusting in the government."
Daniel-
-How so? Seems like it says there is freedom in democracy. But what do I know? I was only a 4.0 student.
Again, democracy is not a particularly desirable state. Our form of government is a representative form of government, and one where rights and minorities are constitutionally protected. Straight democracies are not known for protecting freedom. And - Socialism is neither a representational, nor a democratic, form of government - High School Poly-Sci... Being a 4.0 student does not speak to the quality of classes taken.
**************************************
Julie-
ReplyDelete"Socialist philosophy depicts a utopian society which is a worker’s paradise, a dream for the common man which comes as a result of loyalty to the state and the kings and queens being forced to cough up their wealth to subsidize the poor."
Daniel-
-That sounds like it was taken from a Sarah Palin speech. No, socialist philosophy only assumes that democracy is better than an aristocracy. And kings and queens who stole wealth from the impoverished workers who created the wealth (the workers subsidizing the kings and queens) will one day rot in hell. The workers created it, so it's theirs.
First off on this paragraph - ad-hominem is the refuge of the intellectually and ethically bankrupt. It's even more pitiful when it's incorrect. Socialist philosophy is not a democracy by any honest definition. Yes, there may be votes, but a vote with only one party on the ticket, where failure to vote is punished by prison, does not meet the definition of democracy. Socialism is in fact a utopian system, often self-defined as a worker's paradise or a worker's just society. You, in fact, refer to it as a "democracy" where the "worker" controls "the economy and means of production". When even the self-proclaimed "authority" and "expert" on Socialism depicts it as utopian, just, and a worker's paradise, one should be able to forgive Julie for saying that it is depicted as such, no?
A role for a Sociologist might be to describe and explain why it is that the "purer" the implementation of Socialism - China, North Korea, USSR, GDR, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc. - the more likely the government will use tanks and arms against its citizens, or why it is that from the outside, there is no real apparent difference between socialism as a form of government and theocracy or aristocracy.
**************************************
Julie-
"Instead of food stamps and welfare checks given year after year to the same individuals, I would like to see the poor and needy taught to find a need in society they can fill in order to put food on their own tables."
Daniel-
-Better yet, force deadbeat employers to raise the wages of the workers who created wealth. Do that, and poverty will be no more. The workers have been giving welfare to their employers for many years (which is anti-Biblical), so it's time for them to give back. Otherwise, we should continue to hand out food stamps.
In the end, it always comes back to force, doesn't it? Socialism is just another form of thuggery and looting, and the final recourse is *always* force, fear, oppression, and purges - think of the Jews in Russia, think of the Khmer Rouge, think of the the cultural purges in China, the wall, the Stasi, and on and on and on. A true utopian paradise would not have to resort to jackboots. Yet, here, not even three pages in, we see a call for force against a class of citizen. And that is why Socialism in all its forms should be relegated to history along with all other forms of dictatorships.
**************************************
Julie-
ReplyDelete"Instead of people clamoring for “universal health care”, I would like to see more doctors, nurses, and healers of all persuasions donate their skills in the care of the sick who can’t afford care."
Daniel-
-A nice sentiment, but economically it's not viable. Universal health care is, though.
In what universe? At whose expense? And what if there are not enough people who are willing to become doctors, nurses, orderlies, janitors, records keepers? We force them, right? What about the people who take the risk and invent new technology? When there is no incentive to take that risk, we devolve back to witch doctors and "bleeding", no?
How many new, life-saving procedures, tests, drugs, MRI scanners, CT scanners, stents, artificial hearts, pacemakers came from Cuba, North Korea, USSR, China, GDR, Sweden? I hear the sound of one finger counting....
The world has benefited from inventions in the United States, West Germany, UK and other nominally capitalist countries for so long, that they expect that once the medical industry is nationalized, we will continue to carry them. It won't happen. Medicine will stagnate and devolve, just like every other industry under a command economy.
You cannot force people to invent. You cannot hold a gun to someone's head and make them create new medical procedures. Putting doctors in prison will not materially benefit "the worker". **************************************
Daniel-
Learn more about the Bible and God. Not what your church errantly taught you. Study the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic launguages that were used in the original. Study the society of ancient Israel. Do all of this, and you will better understand Christianity from God's point of view rather than your own. I will be praying for your salvation.
I'm enjoying this paragraph. While I've seen and worked my way through some Aramaic, and am able to read very limited Hebrew (the very little I've learned from my wife's Torah prayer/study books), I am entertained at the notion that Greek was used "in the original". Jeeze, Louise. My guess here is that you are merely "puttin' on airs" and wouldn't know an Aleph from a Bet if one of them bit you.
You have some great insights here Julie. The arguments against them just don't hold up. The Brothers Karamazov is sitting on my bookshelf, thanks for inspiring me to read it!
ReplyDelete