tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27584335.post115204467889484590..comments2007-11-02T17:05:48.628-04:00Comments on Citizen Against Socialism: 5 Reasons Christianity Conflicts with Socialism (#2)Citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04985748056347016172noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27584335.post-1153135741559275212006-07-17T07:29:00.000-04:002006-07-17T07:29:00.000-04:00Citizen, you assume that all the unemployed are un...Citizen, you assume that all the unemployed are unemployed because they are lazy, and that everyone could afford any kind of health care if they only saved enough money. These assumptions need to be justified with more than just examples (certainly there are <I>some</I> unemployed people who are lazy, but I would argue that the vast majority are not).<BR/><BR/>However, that is not what I wish to talk about. It appears to me that once again we are using the word "socialism" to mean different things. You use it to refer to the kinds of policies supported by American liberals (only in a more radical form), while we - and, I would say, the majority of socialists - use it to refer to an economic system that is entirely different from capitalism. Both welfare and progressive taxation are liberal attempts to "fix" capitalism.<BR/><BR/>One of the most important goals of socialism is to provide every able-bodied person with a job (preferably a job that is as close as possible to his liking). "Welfare", if you wish to call it that, would only be given to those who are physically unable to work.<BR/><BR/>The graduated income tax is not a component of the socialist system. In fact, a socialist system would not have any income taxes at all. Logically, since the government is paying you in the first place, it would not make sense for the government to give you some money and then take it back from you.<BR/><BR/>A government that runs the economy does not need taxes to support itself. The role of taxes is to transfer money from the private sector to the public sector. If the whole economy is in the public sector, there is no need for taxes.<BR/><BR/>As a side note, I would like to point out that there were no taxes in the Soviet Union and the other stalinist states. These states were not socialist, of course, but they did show how a government does not need taxes if it runs the economy.<BR/><BR/>You say that "socialism's weakness is that it can not change the heart". That is of course true - no economic system can change the heart. But this is where Christianity comes in. I believe socialism and Christianity are complementary. A good Christian can easily be a good socialist; socialism provides for the people's material needs and Christianity provides for their spiritual needs.Veshgardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00331210054017730835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27584335.post-1152109789396402222006-07-05T10:29:00.000-04:002006-07-05T10:29:00.000-04:00You're right in many respects, in particular, this...You're right in many respects, in particular, this observation holds true for many welfare systems: <BR/>"When researching these programs it was apparent to me that they would fail to discern those really in need and thus hurt everyone by wasting public money. Someone may be making little but saving a lot by living frugally. This person may be denied assistance."<BR/><BR/>It's my view that welfare is a crude tool for a broken system. Progressive taxation, while better than flat taxes or regressive taxes, is also rather clumsy. <BR/><BR/>The only flaw in your argument is that these are not policies of a socialist system, but of a capitalist system. Now, they're policies that socialists will often prefer to no assistance to the poor, but they are by no means part of a socialist society.<BR/><BR/>You're right that some socialists do believe that, given a society in which moral action is not stifled, humans will be nicer people (in fact, you yourself stated "but we do know that people will often do good, whether motivated by conscience, necessity, or the love of Christ"), and some socialists (I should perhaps say anarchists or communists) ultimately advocate a society without any sort of currency - but their views are hardly universal, and in any case, even they normally agree that it would a distant ideal indeed. <BR/><BR/>A socialist society is by no means incompatible with wage differences. The crux of the matter, however, is that those wage differences be proportionate, rather than the disproportionate ones we have in today's society between, say, the money-dealers who contribute nothing and reap millions and the farmers who put bread on our table and scrape together a pittance. Rather, if you work long hours and hard labour, you are entitled to the value of that labour. If you are perfectly able-bodied and able-minded, but refuse to work, society owes you - and gives you - nothing. <BR/><BR/>Individual desires will fuel the economy, whatever the system. The criticism is that under capitalism, the desires of a few can control the economy, and ruin it for the rest of us. And the people who hold the reins are, generally speaking, the ones who've so far been keen to further their own interests enough to accumulate all that wealth. <BR/>In a socialist system, if you want to benefit from what society has to offer, you've got to be prepared to earn it: there is no easy way around it, no cushy jobs or quick ways to the top, you can't feed off others' goodwill without reciprocating with your own.Phugebrinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10851424524869250015noreply@blogger.com