Socialism

Ok, so the other night I met a 20ish guy that was firmly committed to Socialism and appeared to also think he was a Christian. I tried to dissuade him (kindly) from his Socialist views, but he was biased into believing that all rich people evade taxes by hiding money in their basements and that their wealth should be redistributed.

Any ideas on what I should have said?

Also, is it a paradox that he is a 'Christian Socialist'? (I believe that it is)

Discuss!

He's obviously never been to a social/Commun country. Under this system, people are forced to worship the gov**, and there is little or no reli** free. The gov** has complete control, so when they decide that there are too many people or that people with disabilities should not be allowed to live, mothers are forced against their will to have abort**. If you're a native Chris, you're in danger of tort* /and or death; if you're a foreign miss** trying to reach people who are having the Gos* hidden from them, you are constantly in danger of the cops who are all over the place trying to control every single aspect of everyone's lives. Commun/social** is evil and Satanic, and it's horrible to live under. It literally makes me sick.

It's not true that the wealth gets distributed. It never happens that way. The rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. Anyway, stealing from the rich is wrong (Exodus 20).

This is so true. It's very saddening.

Have you ever been to a communist/ socialist country yourself?

I live in one. I experience it every day. A few hours ago I was spreading the Gos* ille, and now I'm hid from the Comm*** pol*.

Praying for you.

Thanks!

Please pray I'll be put in a situation to talk to him about this again.

Socialism is wrong because it is stealing. Legalized stealing.
In many cites there are people who sit on their porches all day, eat peanut butter, and talk. This is a free country and they're allowed to live that way if they want. if they wanted to live better they'd look for a job, but they like it that way so they don't.

Under socialism the gov. steals everything from the people who have worked to better they're living conditions and give it to the person siting on his porch so the people who work are equalized to those who don't.
When someone has had everything stolen from them they lose hope, when they lose hope they stop working, and then the national GDP dose a facedesk. (example: EVERY SOCIALIST NATION EVER! )

Ahem.
I am not at all in favor of Socialism, but I must point out that it is not stealing. Technically, stealing is taking someone's property illegally. The government is the one who decides what is legal, so if a Socialist/Communist government legalizes taking everyone's property, it is no longer stealing.
Messed up, yes, I'll gladly grant you that; but you have to use different terms. Just take a look at all the stuff that is legal in our country that shouldn't be…

I very seldom post in debates, but this is an intriguing subject.
Aside from the point about stealing, have any of you read Animal Farm?

It's stealing because the government takes people's resources without their consent, and usually with force (i.e. the army).

Like if the law said I could take anything that was yours without your permission. Even though it would be legal under the law, it would still be theft to take it from you without your permission.

Like if the law said I could take anything that was yours without your permission. Even though it would be legal under the law, it would still be theft to take it from you without your permission.

So, if you have in your possession something it is illegal for you to possess (such as illegal drugs—a category which is sadly shrinking—or automatic rifle [in a state where they are illegal]) and a police officer comes and takes it away from you without your consent, you would define that as stealing or theft?

If y'all want to shout at me, feel free, but I just want to warn you that I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate, since I find this an interesting discussion, and I've lived the safe life of refusing to post in TD for too long.
:P (a rarely used emoticon to reinforce my statement. )

If a police officer came and took away my gun without my consent, that would be illegal because the possession of firearms is a constitutional right. But if a police officer came and took away marijuana that I had in my possession, (which I obviously don't really have), that would be legal because owning marijuana is illegal, and not a constitutionally defined right. The difference between me taking something that belongs to someone else, and a police office taking something that belongs to me is that the police are the law enforcers, not me. Police have the right to confiscate something that is truly illegal to own–not stuff that they make illegal to own, like guns, or stuff socialists force–but we don't. It would be illegal for me to act as a law enforcement officer and confiscate someone else's illegal possession.

I prefer to call it what it is. Stealing property they have no right to take. and the government you described is called tyranny which should be shot at. having had a taste of what tyranny is like, our forefathers added the second amendment to the constitution.

I have heard about the animal farm but never actually read it my self.
btw I'm not mad at you, devils advocates are important part of a discussion. but I would rather die then live with out freedom.

I too, Roy, like to call things what they are. That is why I corrected you in the first place, because I thought you had inadvertently used the wrong word.

Now, I see that I apparently have a different definition of stealing than you all. I must say I'm surprised, but it has made me carefully consider whether I'm defining "stealing" correctly. Here's my reasoning:

The definition of steal in the New Oxford American Dictionary:
Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

I believe this means that to call something stealing it must fulfill ALL the criteria.
1) without permission
2) without legal right
3) without intending to return it

Socialism does not fulfill criterion 2. To call something "legal stealing" is an oxymoron. I admit, this is quibbling over semantics. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I'm trying to make my argument clear.

If a police officer came and took away marijuana that I had in my possession, (which I obviously don't really have), that would be legal because owning marijuana is illegal, and not a constitutionally defined right. The difference between me taking something that belongs to someone else, and a police office taking something that belongs to me is that the police are the law enforcers, not me. Police have the right to confiscate something that is truly illegal to own--not stuff that they make illegal to own, like guns, or stuff socialists force--but we don't. It would be illegal for me to act as a law enforcement officer and confiscate someone else's illegal possession.

1. If, in a socialistic economy, owning any property is illegal, then taking it away is legal and thus not theft.

2. My point exactly. The police enforce the law. In this case, the law is that no one can own any possessions.

3. Anything that is illegal is made so by the government. I am not aware of any way of differentiating between "truly illegal" and "stuff they make illegal". Nothing is illegal until the government makes it so.

I understand, and mostly agree with you. :)
I'm sure you agree that there is no such thing as complete freedom, though. While every one is endowed with certain inalienable rights from their creator, they are also burdened with inviolable restrictions that rulers agree on, at least in certain numbers. Murder, theft, etc.
Generally, judgment and punishement is administered by the government, but the Jews system (for example) placed the judgment often in the hands of the judges, prophets, and temple government. I think neither the pastors nor Rabbis in America should be in charge of the courts. :P My point is ^AWOL^ besides the rights specifically given to us through creation, the government /really/ is in charge of developing rules, even in some ways controlled substances; whether that possibly includes guns, nuclear missiles, or marijuana.

Happy to hear thoughts.

Edit: I started this post a few hours ago, but left to eat supper and dishes. And now the devil's defense has been back on the case..

Edit 2: How DOES one make italics?

You put an underscore before and after the words like this: See?
(Quote this to see how it looks)

I too, Roy, like to call things what they are. That is why I corrected you in the first place, because I thought you had inadvertently used the wrong word. Now, I see that I apparently have a different definition of stealing than you all. I must say I'm surprised, but it has made me carefully consider whether I'm defining "stealing" correctly. Here's my reasoning: The definition of _steal_ in the New Oxford American Dictionary: Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. I believe this means that to call something stealing it must fulfill ALL the criteria. 1) without permission 2) without legal right 3) without intending to return it Socialism does not fulfill criterion 2. To call something "legal stealing" is an oxymoron. I admit, this is quibbling over semantics. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I'm trying to make my argument clear.

Error in the dictionary. (you can also steal something and then return it but lets not go down that rabbit trail)

That legal part is nice to have when the government is punishing evil but dose not apply when the government is evil punishing good people. God decides whats right and wrong not the government.
a better definition would be: "taking someones property with the owners permission or consent."
the governments job is to enforce whats right, but if it decides to supplant God and relabel things as common property and refined stealing as something it cannot do, its a tyranny.

redefining words is nothing new.

!http://38.media.tumblr.com/2164be11aae970a9c4f891df319fe9b9/tumblr_nja1j5Pv6i1un3qh7o1_250.gif!

!http://38.media.tumblr.com/21d6c1c6b46212040cd8305a49a65cdd/tumblr_mq5uc5fYcU1qzkdnwo4_250.gif!

Ok, you don't agree with the dictionary. Fair enough, but I can't continue the discussion if we are starting from different bases. It would just go around and around in circles.

I do agree that a government which takes away all property would be tyrannical, and ought to be opposed. If America turns into a socialist nation, I propose that we all move to Texas and join the resistance movement.

I also agree that taking people's possessions is in general bad. However, like Sauroc pointed out, as long as we have government, there will be restrictions on personal freedom. The only question is how much is acceptable? I think everyone will come down on a slightly different point along that line. Anyone want to start a thread on anarchy?

Of course, God is the only authority on what is right and what is wrong. No question there.

I think I agree with most of that (it seems you mashed several different time periods of Jewish history together). we should not be free from rules. but what government should be used? I don't know. It goes with out saying that any government will end up developing its own set of rules to enforce (how closely that lines up with Gods standards depends on who is in the government.) and in my opinion the founding fathers did a good job (they may not have been pastors but even the one who claimed to be an atheist prayed to God), they understood that with freedom come a responsibility to not abuse it. however after 200 years the system is no longer run by Godly men, keeping your word is a political joke, we have a bureaucracy that is riddled with corruption and answers only to itself, and a general population that only cares about free stuff aka "fare share," In short it has corroded itself and will fall like an over ripe fruit into the hands of socialism through Martial law.

anarchy and theocracy seem have one thing in common, everyone dose what is right in his own eyes. ^not exactly something I'm in favor of^

Dictionaries are written by people and we have a history of getting things wrong.

So…….. socialism is wrong for all the reasons stealing is wrong but we cant continue if it cant be called something other then stealing? I'm a little confused but your playing devils advocate so maybe we should just call it something generic like socialization for the time being so we can get on with the discussion.

I don't know if this will help or just be repetitive, but I'll throw it out there anyway because it helped me a lot once I understood this.

Our government was created on the understanding that all men have certain unalienable rights from God. It was NOT created to give those rights, but to protect rights we already have (from a higher authority than government: God). However, the common belief nowadays is that our rights come from the government (because of the current lack of belief in God). That idea (that the government gives us our rights), taken to its logical conclusion, means that the government can also redefine our rights or take them away. THAT is how they can infringe on our rights and be staying within the law; they create the law, after all.

It all comes down to worldview. If there is no god, then man is the highest authority, so the law/rights come from man. Who that is, people disagree on. Some people believe that there is no absolute law, but that it's all relative; others, the ones that created the problem here, believe that law/rights come from the government. I forget the specific terms for these beliefs, but I could find them if you want.

Does that make sense? This is why the government is legally able to infringe on our rights - they define the rights, so they can take them away. That is where Sarah was heading.

Personally, I do agree that socialism is stealing. However, I believe that because I believe that my rights come from God. Legality about issues like this gets really messy when the government is the highest authority for law/rights.

well spoken!

Dictionaries are written by people and we have a history of getting things wrong. So........ socialism is wrong for all the reasons stealing is wrong but we cant continue if it cant be called something other then stealing? I'm a little confused but your playing devils advocate so maybe we should just call it something generic like _socialization_ for the time being so we can get on with the discussion.

I'm sorry I have confused you. I feel like my original point is not important enough to argue into the ground, since we are in agreement that socialism is wrong. By all means, let us get on with the discussion. :)

I have a question for you. Do you believe that the government is justified in taking anything away from private persons?

Anything, yes.
If a person isn't responsible enough to have a nuclear reactor he/she shouldn't have the liberty to have one. Since an unsafe nuclear reactor would be a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of large numbers of people the government should have a legal procedure to take it away from said person.

I don't think socialism is wrong in theory. Ideally, in a socialist nation, everybody helps each other and works for the common good. However, in practice, socialism doesn't work. Human beings generally are not capable of handling the power that comes with being a socialist leader. All it takes is one corrupt leader, and the whole country may be destroyed. Also, people are not inclined to work as hard when they are working for the good of the whole as when they are working for themselves. Socialism fails because of human nature. Some of the worst atrocities of the Modern Age have been committed by socialist governments. Thousands have died as a direct result of socialism in countries such as the former USSR, North Korea, and Vietnam. The Nazi government was socialist.
Of course, all the countries of the world are under Satan's control. The world has always been under Satan's control. A Christian who tries to change the social order of the world on a large scale will be disappointed. God's kingdom is not of this world. We have been called to bear witness of the gospel so that people will become part of God's kingdom. That is the government that is worth our devotion. If all rich people are hiding their wealth in their basements, that's too bad for them. They will not be able to take any of it with them into eternity.

It seems like it may be helpful to clarify what exactly a person's right to ownership is. It seems like most people agree that the government has the right to impose some regulations on its citizens - so why is okay to make certain drugs illegal but not okay to make owning a home illegal? If you're coming from the biblical-rights perspective, where do we find that we have 'God-given rights' to own certain things but not others?

If there is a moral/biblical justification for an inalienable right to certain ownerships then we have a basis to make a case against socialism. But until that foundation is laid it might be rather tricky to say that socialism is bad because it denies ownership of property to its citizens.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Anything, yes. If a person isn't responsible enough to have a nuclear reactor he/she shouldn't have the liberty to have one. Since an unsafe nuclear reactor would be a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of large numbers of people the government should have a legal procedure to take it away from said person.

Ok. If the government has a legal procedure to take a nuclear reactor away from an irresponsible person, would you consider that justified theft?
It would be "taking someone's property without the owner's permission or consent", which is how you defined stealing several posts ago.

It seems like it may be helpful to clarify what exactly a person's right to ownership is. It seems like most people agree that the government has the right to impose some regulations on its citizens - so why is okay to make certain drugs illegal but not okay to make owning a home illegal? If you're coming from the biblical-rights perspective, where do we find that we have 'God-given rights' to own certain things but not others? If there is a moral/biblical justification for an inalienable right to certain ownerships then we have a basis to make a case against socialism. But until that foundation is laid it might be rather tricky to say that socialism is bad because it denies ownership of property to its citizens. Hopefully that makes sense.

Excellent question! This is the point I'm trying to make. It makes sense to me, at least.

Anything, yes. If a person isn't responsible enough to have a nuclear reactor he/she shouldn't have the liberty to have one. Since an unsafe nuclear reactor would be a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of large numbers of people the government should have a legal procedure to take it away from said person.

Ok. If the government has a legal procedure to take a nuclear reactor away from an irresponsible person, would you consider that justified theft? It would be "taking someone's property without the owner's permission or consent", which is how you defined stealing several posts ago.

A responsible person has the liberty to own one. an but an irresponsible one forfeits that liberty when they become a public threat and the person should be lock away before disposing of the public threat.
It's like saying we "Americans have the right to have fire arms, so american inmates should have guns in jail."

owning a home dose not drastically shorten your life (not a problem of the state) or make you compulsively brake laws and endanger others (which are problems of the state).

Natural Law is more of an axiom. and When the bible says "thou shall not steal" can it not be assumed that some one owned something to be stolen.

It seems like it may be helpful to clarify what exactly a person's right to ownership is. It seems like most people agree that the government has the right to impose some regulations on its citizens - so why is okay to make certain drugs illegal but not okay to make owning a home illegal? If you're coming from the biblical-rights perspective, where do we find that we have 'God-given rights' to own certain things but not others? If there is a moral/biblical justification for an inalienable right to certain ownerships then we have a basis to make a case against socialism. But until that foundation is laid it might be rather tricky to say that socialism is bad because it denies ownership of property to its citizens. Hopefully that makes sense.

Excellent question! This is the point I'm trying to make. It makes sense to me, at least.

So how would you answer that? I was actually genuinely asking the question, it wasn't meant to be rhetorical. :) Where do we find a moral/biblical justification to own certain things but not others?

owning a home dose not drastically shorten your life (not a problem of the state) or make you compulsively brake laws and endanger others (which are problems of the state). Natural Law is more of an axiom. and When the bible says "thou shall not steal" can it not be assumed that some one owned something to be stolen.

I think I understand what you are saying but it doesn't really get us an further in the discussion. Even if the eighth commandment does indicate that people can own things, I'm not sure how we can use it to define what powers a government does/does not have over its citizens. I think it is fairly clear from other passages that people can/have/do own(ed) property, so we can agree on that.

Welcome to the forums, Cory! I have approved your first post; all future posts will be automatically approved. Sorry for the extreme delay in moderation :(

Welcome to the forums, Cory! I have approved your first post; all future posts will be automatically approved. Sorry for the extreme delay in moderation :(

Were you talking to me? Sorry if I seem confused, but it says that your comment is 'in reply to Joshua Swaim'.

That's alright about the lack/delay of moderation. I enjoy witnessing a good debate every now and again xP

welcome to the forums Joshua.

As with everything socialism sounds good if you omit the right set of truth.

you said "Christian who tries to change the social order of the world on a large scale will be disappointed." what do you think about a national level (like what Gorge Washington and the founding fathers)?

I don't think socialism is wrong in theory. Ideally, in a socialist nation, everybody helps each other and works for the common good. However, in practice, socialism doesn't work. Human beings generally are not capable of handling the power that comes with being a socialist leader. All it takes is one corrupt leader, and the whole country may be destroyed. Also, people are not inclined to work as hard when they are working for the good of the whole as when they are working for themselves. Socialism fails because of human nature. Some of the worst atrocities of the Modern Age have been committed by socialist governments. Thousands have died as a direct result of socialism in countries such as the former USSR, North Korea, and Vietnam. The Nazi government was socialist. Of course, all the countries of the world are under Satan's control. The world has always been under Satan's control. A Christian who tries to change the social order of the world on a large scale will be disappointed. God's kingdom is not of this world. We have been called to bear witness of the gospel so that people will become part of God's kingdom. That is the government that is worth our devotion. If all rich people are hiding their wealth in their basements, that's too bad for them. They will not be able to take any of it with them into eternity.

Welcome to Memverse! Have fun!
ducks out of the conversation xD

I'm sure God can use people to make good changes, but Christ's kingdom is not on this world. If George Washington was trying to set up a free nation, he failed. All that the Revolution accomplished was freedom for the colonists, not freedom for African slaves or native Americans. I can't help but notice that Britain freed slaves in their empire before America ever did. Anyway, my point was that I think sometimes Christians can get caught up in trying to change the political and social structure of this world, and forget that we are supposed to be focusing on a kingdom in heaven. With God's help, we are supposed to be bringing people to Christ. If we do that, I think God can use us to move nations.

^(oh, of this world, for a while i though you meant the social structure of this planet as a hole. That would be quite a crusade)^

Ultimately we will always be slaves to ourselves, But I had the impression freedom from Great Britten was what they had in mind. I would say they were going more for Life (they'er dead they failed), Liberty (and in this nation we can't even kill each other. Hypocrites!), And the pursuit of happiness (the lust of the flesh! EVIL SUBJECTIVE SORCERY! Burn ALL them with FIRE!!!).

I agree that we are commanded to make disciples (something that has been neglected by to many for to long) But are you saying that Christians shouldn't have any influential positions in society, vote, or try to rebuild walls as it were? its just that many people over the years have felt called to stagnate in church buildings as a followers of Christ at the neglect of all else (the sorry state of the nation is in part due to such teachings).

I think that Christians should use their rights to vote and their positions in society to do as much good as they can. I just think that sometimes Christians can go off on an extreme and make changing society their goal. Sometimes they start pushing social messages more than the gospel. The gospel is the only thing that has the power change society. That's why I would wonder about someone who claims to be a Socialist Christian. Is his goal to make a utopia on earth? This world will never achieve that until Jesus comes and sets up His kingdom.

True. I can't disagree with any of that.

I agree. The biggest flaw of socialism is that fails to take into account sinful human nature.

Indeed. If people were perfect, socialism would be ideal. But since we're not, it fails every time.