|
|
Post by robin on Oct 10, 2008 12:29:43 GMT -8
Thanks Michelle for your response. I think the more input we have the better off we are.
So, let me say this. When comparing Capitalism/Socialism/Communism, I do so with this in mind. All Are considered viable economic systems at least to some extent. Anarchy is not. I have no intentions of disparaging anyone who has socialist leanings, but I do want to give my reasons for disliking it, and thinking that as a country we should be moving in the other direction. Instead we seem to be creeping closer and closer to this form of economics. Now I know that some use terms like socialism/communism, in order to silence opposing views. This is not my intent. By everything I have read from Nate's last post it seemed that he would favor socialism over capitalism. So moving forward I thought it would be best to lay out my thoughts as to why this would be a bad idea. If I insulted Nate, I sincerely apologize. However this discussion is important because this is where we are at in politics. we can either choose a party that believes in free markets or one that believes that the government is best suited to drive the economy. I am more than happy to defend my position on this, and that is all I was intending to do.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 10, 2008 17:19:26 GMT -8
OK, I'm behind and haven't thoroughly read the last 3 comments, but I do have to note that I noticed in Nate's post the use of the word "distrubution" and "spreading" in regard to wealth enough that it caused me to think that's it insteresting what assumptions about the role of the government in regard to handling wealth that we bring to the table. I would agree to some extent with Robin that this mindset and it's terminology (which I also use sometimes) does hint of socialism more than capitalism. Americans living 120 years ago wouldn't have used such phrases nearly as readily. Whether that's good or bad I think it difficult to say. Maybe I'll have more to say when I read through the last couple post more thoroughly  |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 10, 2008 17:24:09 GMT -8
Again, crazy strapped for time.  1st: i'm not offended in the slightest. Iron sharpens iron, no? 2nd: I think people can be in bondage to business as well. Some extreme cases might be sweatshops (like I make myself work in  ), child labor, slaves, etc. 3rd: I don't think what I proposed i.e. a progressive tax would be full blown socialism or even close, but i haven't looked into socialism close enough to really know. 4th: I do not favor laissez-faire capitalism or communism. 5th: I think some balance between socialism and capitalism might be best. 6th: Aren't things like unemployment, public schools, clean water mild forms of socialism 7th: What do you (Robin) think of the recent government action regarding fannie mae/freddiemac/AIG/700bill rescue-bailout plan/Mr. McCain's recent idea to buy up bad mortgages/etc.? Much more to say. Gotta go! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 10, 2008 20:02:50 GMT -8
robin wrote: What if they are purchasing it at a really good deal from their father-in-law?  Don't think I missed that jab  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 10, 2008 21:12:37 GMT -8
I don't like the bailout at all. I think we should have let it play out even if it was going to be more painful than what it is now. However it is now a done deal, and we must move on from here. We must stop giving out sub-prime mortgages. Stop providing credit to people who have no ability to pay back.
What we now have is not trickle down economics, but trickle up. Look at where it has gotten us. Now let me quickly explain. For a long time the left has said the things that Nate has repeated here. That is, give money to those at the bottom and try to build the middle class from the bottom up. So we provided credit lines in order to put poor people in homes (Sub-prime). Now those mortgages are foreclosing because the poor can't ride out a downturn in the market. So we have billions in faulty mortgages, and the poor and low income are now worse off than before. So lets not be so quick to say this is the fault of reaganonics, and trickle down. This cannot be allowed to happen again. The government should set higher standards for getting home loans. 10-20% down, proof of income, 5+ years work history. This is common sense. We should also be prosecuting those who were cooking the books (Frank Rains, Jim Johnson) and investigate Christopher Dodd, and Barney Franks and their roles in this mess. There appears to have been some quid-pro-quo. Lets make an example of these folks.
I know you got a good deal. I was just having fun with you. ;D
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 11, 2008 7:35:22 GMT -8
Sure. But you can quite your job, you can't quite your government. I will say that I believe there should be reasonable oversight, and little regulation. As little as possible. So the could be considered Laissez-faire, but probably not. Great. We'll become Canada.  Unemployment, and Public schools? Yes. Both of which I think should be abolished. Clean water? I don't think so. But my thoughts are all of these and most other areas that the government controls can be handled cheaper and more efficiently by the private market. I would only exclude defense. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 11, 2008 18:10:50 GMT -8
OK, I agree with this in many ways. By encouraging irresponsible financial decisions United States financial policy has weakened our economic strength. However, does this mean you don't like McCain's plan to have the fed's buy bad mortgages? (Is that what you're saying above- that this is one area you don't agree with him?)
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 12, 2008 8:07:50 GMT -8
I'm not a big fan of any of these bailouts. McCains proposal probably won't go anywhere so I don't think we need to worry.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Oct 12, 2008 20:33:27 GMT -8
When comparing Capitalism/Socialism/Communism, I do so with this in mind. All Are considered viable economic systems at least to some extent. Anarchy is not. Now I know that some use terms like socialism/communism, in order to silence opposing views. This is not my intent. I appreciate this. The one thing that I must point out is that socialism and communism, while they have some commonalities are different things. Communism is not just an economical system, but it's also a political system. Anarchy is also a political system, or lack of political system. So when you mentioned communism, I think it was not clear that you were talking only about the economical aspect. My reaction was mostly in response to the use of the word communism because as a political system its theoretical form would 1) call for an overthrow of the capitalist government by the working class, 2) would actually be anarchy as theoretical communism calls for a stateless society, and 3) all of the examples of communism that we have seen have shown that true communism as a socioeconomic structure cannot work as they are more reflective of a totalitarian society than to a true communist society. I think it's very important to point out that communism as we all see it has some differences from what it is supposed to be. I think when people here about communism one of the things that comes to mind is the oppression, when communism is actually supposed to be exactly the opposite. I do not believe that anything Nate has said would lead us to believe that this is what he wants. If I insulted Nate, I sincerely apologize. No offense, Nate, but I really wasn't concerned with whether or not Nate was offended. I just felt like it was a misrepresentation of his words. |
|
|
|
Post by meghan on Oct 29, 2008 21:34:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Oct 29, 2008 21:55:20 GMT -8
What's wrong with socialism?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 30, 2008 9:21:42 GMT -8
What's wrong with socialism? Hi Margot, In my opinion, socialism removes the responsibility, possibility of individuals to act in accordance with their good conscience. It relegates these vital human traits to the state. Instead of you or I deciding how to live our lives, share our wealth, and exceed economically, the state will decide. The mantra of the socialist is "Power to the People", but I prefer "Power to the Meople". Why would I want a Godless entity like the state deciding in matters of personal conscience? Should not I decide how to give my money away, or even to give it away at all. You see socialism tries to solve problems through social engineering, progressive taxation, when these problems can only be solved through individual conviction. Obama has said that he would like to spread the wealth around. Well that is fine with me as long is he is talking about his own wealth. But we all know that he wasn't. Obama wants to spread other peoples wealth around. Now isn't that stealing? If Obama decides as president (God save us!), that he thinks the so called rich should be paying more in taxes and in turn he is going to cut a check to those who pay no taxes, please exp[lain how that is not robbery? Those so called rich people did not want to give their money away, but had no choice in the matter. Does anyone credit those wealth people with giving their money away? No! They credit Obama. But why? Its not his money. He just stole it and gave it to someone else that he feels is more deserving. Where is the justice in that? Earlier I gave this example to Nate. "In regard to tax policy you could say that I disagree with both candidates, but I will settle for the lesser of two evils. It is my view that our current tax structure is entirely unjust. As a Christian I am very troubled by the trend I see in how the Left views taxes. Will anyone explain to me where the justice is in having the government steals from one person in order to give his or her wealth to another. Does this not trouble others? When a politician says, “I’m going to tax only the wealthiest in America and cut taxes on the middle and low income” What are they doing? They are stealing from one for the benefit of another. Lets compare and contrast two scenarios. One, the government steals from a wealthy man and skims some money of the top to pay himself and his friends, and gives a little to someone who has not earned it, and in turn the one receiving the money thanks the politician and continues to re-elect them, or two, the wealthy person freely give out of a sense of love and charity, and the poor person can see the wealthy persons good deeds and praise God. What is better, the praise of a politician who steals, or the praise of God who meats the needs of his children through those who have the ability to give? Seems pretty ease to me. There fore, the only fair tax system is a low flat tax, and not a system of wealth distribution, which is socialism."These are the problems I see with socialism. It is an un-just political system that inhibits the freedom that God gave us. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by meghan on Oct 30, 2008 14:59:59 GMT -8
Well, if we want the state out of our business, how about anarchy, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 30, 2008 15:40:31 GMT -8
Meghan, I read the paragraph on the link you provided but didn't read anything else (looks like the website's under construction). I'm trying to get a read on where it's coming from and the relationship they're trying to establish between anarchy and christianity. From some brief browsing, it seems like there might be a link between what they're espousing and liberation theology. I don't know a ton about liberation theology except that it's popular in south america and doesn't it advocate violent overthrow of the state to acheive it's theological ends? Also, how would a "Christian anarchist" view apply verses like this: Romans 13:1-3 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.1 Peter 2:13-14 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.Just curious. I'm not getting all up in arms or anything about it ;D Get it??? Up in arms.  |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Oct 30, 2008 20:26:44 GMT -8
Meghan, Also, how would a "Christian anarchist" view apply verses like this: Romans 13:1-3 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.1 Peter 2:13-14 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.Josh, I think these verses speak specifically to what we should do when we have governing authorities. I don't think that they state that we have to have authorities. After all, if God is the ultimate authority, wouldn't the ideal society be one in which we are to be governed by God only? Obviously this is not viable because there are people that do not submit to God's authority. I think had we not fallen, we would be living in a anarchist society. Neither Adam nor Eve were given authority over one another. |
|
|
|
Post by meghan on Oct 30, 2008 22:01:47 GMT -8
Also, how would a "Christian anarchist" view apply verses like this: no idea. i'm not a theologian. BUT there are forums at that website you can post on. Ask them! What I've been mulling over lately is that a capitalistic society doesn't seem right to me either, nor the obsession with politics, the effort of figuring out mine/yours, and the constant strain of Christians to become "relevant" to the society we inhabit. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 31, 2008 8:17:47 GMT -8
OK, I don't want this to sound trite or overly simplistic, and please don't read any hostility in this as I get up on a soapbox, but aren't all christian supposed to be theologians?
Of course we can't all be experts in everything, but to me theologian isn't/ shouldn't be a technical term reserved for people with PHDs. We all have to do the best we can, given the limitations we have, to understand how to apply the word of God to the world we live in, right? We can't just ignore what it has to say (I don't think that's what you're trying to say, though, right?)
Actually, beyond all this, we all already have theological viewpoints by default. We can't avoid being theological on any issue, we are by nature "theological". The question is the quality of our theology*
I totally resonate with this (I feel very similar) and am very interested in this discussion. Thanks for bringing this up. I really want to discuss this.
I'll be back with a couple questions for you and Michelle....
*and I"m not claiming to have quality theology... our views about God are so warped from the get-go we spend most of our Christian lives slowly bit by bit wiping the mirror clean, as it were, which requires a tremendous amount of humility in our ever-changing theological perspectives.
|
|
), child labor, slaves, etc.
