I began this entry as a response to a question concerning my response to the well thought out essay, ‘Of Liberality and Parsimony’ by Isaac Riddle, my brilliant little brother. The essay dealt with the underlying economic ideas of the modern liberal. He aptly describes the fallacies of the liberal economic ideas while contrasting it to the out-moded meaning of ‘liberal’.
While I thoroughly agreed with the essay’s theme, I saw a more interesting, though possibly unintended current. It was a desire to achieve the ideas of social responsibility, or liberalism, through capitalistic ideas. A beautiful dream. I posted the comment ‘You make a strong case for capitalistic socialism. Well done sir.’
My other erudite brother asked me to explain. The following is my attempt to do so. It is a deviation from what I like to write, but perhaps you will find it a touch interesting. I have no delusions to the response I will no doubt receive. Please do keep it civil and take it easy on me, I used to be a Republican. On to the show.
Alright, capitalistic socialism. I’m quoining the phrase (and yes, I’m using ‘quoin’ instead of ‘coin’ because I like the building representation rather then the invention idea associated with ‘coining’…I digress already) ‘capitalistic socialism’ due to the desire for both worlds.
The two are diabolically opposed, yet strive for the same end. This complicates matters. Both seek happiness. Simple as that. (Or other semi-synonyms like contentment, provision, ease, &c.) The problem is until this moment – rather 05 Feb. 07 when Isaac so eloquently brought the two together – you had to choose. I propose we name Isaac the great combiner; the next in a long line of greats – Henry ‘the great compromiser’ Clay, Luke ‘the great kisser’ Riddle, &c.
Okay, quickly since you all know this…capitalism seeks its ends through individual achievement; socialism, through collective achievement. Isaac wants to combine the practicality and out and out greed of capitalism with the dreamy unicorns of collective socialism. I love it. Not sure how it’s going to work, but I love it all the same.
Unfortunately in this world, you are forced to choose between evils. Not the lesser of, just evils. And for me and mine, I choose moderate socialism for one complex reason: money will not be my god.
Capitalism, no matter how you slice it sets money up as an idol. You strive, fight, scratch and grope for its attention and hopefully its blessings. It disgusts me. There is something to say for pulling yourself up by your boot straps, cowboying it, making it on your own, living the ‘American dream’, &c. But I reject these. I reject the idea that the American dream is to pull myself up by my bootstraps and ‘make something of myself’ through momentary gains.
There was a time when people of quality thought it foul to even discuss money. Honor and family were the means of self promotion. This too is flawed, but it preserved something deeply imbedded in our souls. Money and its love debase this precious spark of honor and family, community and welfare. Thus I reject it.
I dare say, (and this is an opinion you can and most likely will throw back at me and I will be unable to defend) no society based on capitalism will stand. It will collapse under the weight of its selfish greed. It will fall through exhaustion and boredom. But it will laugh at others as it falls, for there is no system as thoroughly self centered and void of charity as capitalism.
Yes, it will give the power to buy toys. Yes, it is the engine powering the machine generating funds for missionaries and churches; hospitals and needy kids in Africa; retirement homes and food banks. Did you catch it? In the above sentence lies the base line problem. We see these things as ‘charity’ and we pat ourselves on the back when we give. The government offers tax breaks to do so. Do you see? Or are you so ingrained in self provision you fail to see this is a finger of its evil. We should not pat ourselves on the back for doing those things, it is out duty. We should not congratulate others or ourselves for doing what we are commanded.
“When a servant comes in from plowing or taking care of sheep, he doesn’t just sit down and eat. He must first prepare his master’s meal and serve him his supper before eating his own. And the servant is not even thanked, because he is merely doing what he is supposed to do. In the same way, when you obey Me, you should say, ‘We are not worthy of praise. We are servants who have simply done our duty.’”
Luke 17:7-10
Those acts of charity and good will are our duty. This drives to the heart of capitalism. Capitalism would have us believe the commandments Jesus gave us to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, aide the poor, &c, were suggestions only to be executed after we have maxed out our Roth IRA, put some aside for our kids college and of course paid off that credit card debt we incurred through buying into the capitalistic idea of excess and impatience. I reject this.
So what is the alternative? Socialism? Good Lord, now we are in trouble. Socialism as I put forth above is the dreamy, unicorn idea that we actually want to help our brother. When we choose otherwise, the government steps in and forces the issue through excessive taxation. It is an idea of commonality and welfare. Yet it assumes too much. It assumes though holding hands we can compete against the frantic rage of capitalism. It assumes no bitterness. It assumes an idea of ‘greater good’ and ‘nationalism’ and ‘brotherly love’. If this world has proven nothing, it has proven we cannot bear the thought of any of these ideas.
The knock on socialism is it allows people to fall to their base level as sluggards. This may be true. Opponents site the lack of quality provided by countries with socialistic health care systems and public works. These are for good reason. Despite the fact socialism dreams to be by the people and a brother of political anarchy, it is still a system that must be run by men. And men play favorites. And men are corrupt. And men fall into the trap of capitalistic ideas.
Where does the downward spiral take us? Idolatry and boredom. Emptiness and dullness. Both systems slowly crush our will to serve and, isn’t servitude the example Jesus set? Are we not called to be servants of all? Ultimately are we not called to serve God? When He said, you cannot serve two masters, it was a simple prognostication. Any active observer might easily make this same statement concerning money and God. It is obvious when you watch your brother.
Here is where Isaac comes in. He has proposed (even if he didn’t know it at the time) a system where the two join hands and form a self-aggrandizing evil for which there is no combating for it is too beautiful, too simple and ultimately too deceptive to be fought off. Capitalistic socialism puts all of us who despise money and the world it produced in a tight spot. It asks us to use capitalistic ideas to produce a social state. A marriage made in hell. How could we ever dream to fight such massive ego and conscience stroking? Simple answer you can’t. Thank God it would never work.
He discusses the out-moded idea of ‘liberalism’ and explains how the modern liberal stole and bastardized this idea. He insinuates a contrast between the modern liberal’s economic ideas of socialism with a desire to produce socialistic ends through capitalistic means. Unfortunately, the only solution is not an amalgamation, rather the destruction of the two. As God opposed the Israelite’s desire for a king, yet consented and gave them Saul, perhaps He has done the same through our current monetary systems. Clearly God knew the best for His children was to worship him and not a kingly figurehead. I believe He would say the same about economy and politic. Though we may dream to the days when He has washed both away, for now we are left with few choices. Whichever we choose lets not make it our idol. Deal?
Give yourself an “F” in economics 101. You have a flawed understanding of both capitalism and socialism. The heart of both is not as you described., thus undermining the entire argument. The issue is private property rights, be it property(land), money, intellectual property etc. Capitalism , as practiced in varying degrees, protects the indivdual’s rights to property. Socialism eliminates those rights and endows them to the state.
Any serious reading of scriptures will demonstrate that owning property was a blessing from God. God also protected the rights of property owners. (proverbs in many places and many provisions of the law). The New Testament says God blesses people so that they in turn might bless others. Socialism removes the possibility of you “blessing” someone . The state takes away from you and gives it to others.
Take things beyond mere theory. 5000 years of history have clearly demonstrated socialistic types of economy make everyone’s standard of living worse. Capitalistic (private property) systems make everyone’s standard of living better.
You need a better underpinning of a solid Christian world view. It seems humanistic elements are corrupting your thought processes.
Though the above comment was rather harsh, I must say that I agree. I think that socialisim to any degree is flawed. But to back this up as always, lets put it up to scripture. In the above comment, Herman said that “socialism removes the possibility of you “blessing someone.” Not only does it remove the possiblity, it removes the RESPONSIBILITY.
James 1:27 says this: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows… Now it does not say to give your money to the government so that they can establish places for the widows and orphans. No! It is a direct command to Christians, to use the money that they have to support widows and orphans.
Looking to the end of the 4th chapter of Acts and into the beginning of the 5th we see Christians selling their property and giving money to the Apostles to distribute. We see that this is a good thing! But again, the governement is not involved. It is through the work of the Holy Spirit in these Christians lives that they saw that their possesions belonged to the Lord. The Apostles did not require this of them, it was because they were of “one heart and mind.”
Now brother, I do agree that non- Christians (and some Christians) are setting up money as there God and worshiping it as though it could satisfy. All the more reasons that we as Christians must stand up against this idea and lead by example of generosity and faithfulness to the Lord with our posessions.
I encourage you to derive your worldview from Scriptures only, not out of a bitterness towards a corrupt world.
well said to the both of you. however not only did you miss the point of the essay, you mis-understand the topic at hand. i have to fly right now, but will further clarify my thoughts as well as (grudgingly) speak to economics as apposed to metaphysical economics as i laid down in my entry.
i love it, it strikes fear into the heart of americans who think they living in a capitalistic society! so bring the pain! as my mama told me yesterday, ‘as iron sharpens iron’ such is a good debate.
lw
Here are a couple of thoughts to chew on as we consider this. In the Garden God said “to them, ‘”Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground”‘. Gen 1:28 Now I do not know if this is capitalism or not but it appears to me that the Lord had put something in mankind that is not inclined toward letting some else provide for him. Words like subdue and rule do not, i am thinking, go with the way of socialism, at least for those who are not at the top of the socialism totem pole. Those at the top still get to decide what happens (rule?).
I realilze as I write this that we are not acting now out of our “meant to be” nature. We are acting from a fallen nature. And maybe here is a point to consider; our nature fell because of sin but it did not change in substance, it is just not what God intended it to be. We fell, we were not unmade from one nature into another. Is that clear? Is it true? The part of us, our life, that was breathed into us, that gives us our nature was not changed in substance by sin rather it was inhibited or incapsulated by sin. We are now working out our salvation, seeing the Holy Spirit work a change (I must use this word as i can not think of another more fitting one) in our lives so that we will be holy as God is holy.
i say all of this is order to present that there was and is a way of God but I do not know exactly what it is; He did not choose to tell us what a world wide Eden would have looked like. In our attempt to live this life we must strive to do what we do according to His revealed Word. In this attempt there will be things that are right and things that are wrong weighed in His balance.
With recognition of Hermans’ point, which i think is true, could we practice any socioeconomic scheme (one within reason as a given) if we did it with the idea that we were hoping at the end to hear “Well done good and faithful servant”? Some one has mention the fact that God did not want His people to have a king other than Him yet he gave them one and it failed. Yes it did but look at how the Lord blessed the heart cry of Soloman when he prayed for the qualities necessary to be king. Soloman was blessed with all that he asked for and more! Yes Soloman did fall and he did fail but anything short of the reign of the King of Kings will fail.
So could socialism practiced by people whose cry was “let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to you O Lord” succeed? I believe it might. But would it? I think the answer is no. Because it could not be practiced righteously for long, our fallen nature showing itself both in ruling and/or in laziness would doom it to failure.
As a side point I think that of capitalism and socialism socialism is the furtherest from that initial Eden command. Socialism is a man made attempt to live life apart from God; live a life ignoring the commands of Eden. In short it is a way to make our own garden of Eden and to be our own God.
well said pops, even if i disagree with the final paragraph. however, the point of my essay was to denounce all such economic systems not defend socialistic thought. that said, lets not jump the gun and run to support capitalism because we watch rocky IV. in the same vain, neither should we jump to the antithisis, socialism.
if i may indulge, a response to herman:
the fact of the matter is there is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism. never has been never will be. both would look so foul and disgusting it would make this sailor blush. england never found pure capitalism despite adam smith’s insistance on laissez-faire capitalism. the ussr never found pure communism (let it be known that socialism and communism are not one in the same. in fact they are starkly different though they share a common ancestor. socialist loath communist in the way communist loath capitalist….i digress) despite choosing a name (communist party) that indicated their hope of an end.
herman has some good ideas, but falls far short of truth. for one, the essay sped over the ‘heart’ of both socio-economic systems yet did so accurately as it is the age old struggle of individualism versus collectivism.
at the heart of capitalism is not private property, though it is a means by which capitalism works. rather the beating pulse of capitalism is free markets and the idea that pursuit of individual interest produces a collective good for society. I accurately stated this in my essay and spoke to the base level greed which it causes. even ardent neoclassical economist will begrudging agree the end result of laissez-faire capitalism is labour abuse, monopoly and oligarchy.
central to socialism is the implied abolition of money, markets, capital and labor as a commodity. these desires were borne from british and french thinkers reacting to the poverty and inequality; hoping a scientific division of labour would lead to social harmony. once again, herman accuses me of misrepresenting the ‘heart’ of the system. again, i accurately, though briefly described such a system and went so far as to call it term its practicality as ‘dreamy unicorns of collective socialism.’
now i will agree that God not only sanctions and blesses the ownership of property (to be understood as intellectual and physical) but goes as far as to say He delights in giving good gifts to His children. however, merely throwing one ambiguous statement does very little to further his attack on me when nearly all socio-economic thought and theory is derived from the attempt to understand the Biblical way to interpret scripture in regards to money. unfortunately, this is a very important issue and will take much more room then i’m here allotted, so i delay my thoughts to be discussed further in more detail.
herman plainly states that governments and economic systems determine our ability to do as God commands. ‘Socialism removes the possibility of you “blessing” someone.’ how can this be? by no means sir, do any government, be they fascist or egalitarian, communist or republic dictate if you are to follow Gods commands.
but here is the kicker, we live in the system i quoined capitalistic socialism. the religious socialism movement (yes, socialism was led by church during the turn of the last century) essentially ended when roosevelt following keynesian economics implemented nearly every tenet of the socialism platform into law through the famous ‘new deal’. having now accomplished the democratic socialist agenda, america entered into a new era of economy know to capitalist as a ‘mixed economy’ and socialist as a ‘centrally planned economy’. the two are one in the same.
we live in a socialist state. suprise. has it stolen your ability to bless others? has it removed your responsibility to go to work every day? have we instantly become sluggards? no, no and no. it is our current socio-economic system i spoke to. it is our current system i descibed thusly,
‘a system where the two join hands and form a self-aggrandizing evil for which there is no combating for it is too beautiful, too simple and ultimately too deceptive to be fought off. Capitalistic socialism puts all of us who despise money and the world it produced in a tight spot. It asks us to use capitalistic ideas to produce a social state. A marriage made in hell. How could we ever dream to fight such massive ego and conscience stroking? Simple answer you can’t.’
next. herman is absolutely correct in the assertion that capitalism has improved standard of living where it concerns food distribution, shelter and other basic necessities. no other economic system comes close to providing wealth like capitalism. i will ask the question though, and it is for you to answer individually; does wealth equal morality? is a higher standard of living the ultimate goal of life here on earth? as a self professing, though rarely acting, luddite, i would say, where as capitalism has made much of life easier, it has done little to make us happier. just my opinion.
lastly, i stand accused of humanism. how can this be when i denounce both systems as corrupt and the love of money to be an idol. it doesn’t make since and leads me to believe my essay was not even considered when the response was written. had i ardently proclaimed socialism to be salvation, then perhaps. on the flip side, if i was to stick up for capitalism i should be rightfully accused of secularism. it is for this reason i said, ‘Unfortunately in this world, you are forced to choose between evils. Not the lesser of, just evils.’
i have much more to say on the subject. there seems to be a great misunderstanding of said socio-economic systems and how we as Christians should treat these. as i continue to learn, i grow more outraged at the cult of money. it stand to reason, as thinkers both as Christians and the learned, that we must critically view the systems available to us and decide which is the ‘moral’ system not which one we will tolerate due to its practicality.
lw
oh luke! always such a dichotomy. feet on the ground, head in the sky. soldier and anarchist. i think your argument is noble, however you fail to remember that it is not the system that fails the man, it is the man that fails the system. it is because of our own greed and laziness that neither work when practiced.
in the case of capitalism our greed divides the upper and lower classes more with each generation, while our socialist brothers fail to push the limits of knowledge and technology when the monitary gain is not as great.
that said i would suggest taking your own advice. donate to all causes which speak to your heart, and be the sort of citizen you wish we all would be.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” -Richard Buckminster Fuller
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” -Mahatma Gandhi
Simply put, capitalism allows you to choose how to spend your money while socialism chooses for you. Do you think Cuba tithes everybody’s money and gives to the church? No. The USA doesn’t tithe our money either, but we are given the right to tithe OUR money. Capitalism is not evil, men are evil. If people in the Church where more generous our government wouldn’t have to tax us as much to provide social programs. Socialism sounds nice, but when it is not ran theocratically it never works. I’m sure you are aware that the USA is not Theocratic, but democratic. (Be careful in comparing a democratic state to a theocratic state—kind of like apples and oranges.) Capitalism allows us to have ownership and freedom to obey God with this money. One side note, Christians in a socialistic society can still obey God with their money (what little they are given).
Also, Mr. Luddite, socialism produces a lifestyle of mediocrity. No one strives to be the best because there is no incentive to be the best. No one is encouraged to use their God-given minds like capitalism. (I’m sure you are enjoying your Mac.) That is why Canadians come to the USA for surgery.
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing because you provide no solution, but that everything is just evil. In iteration, capitalism is not evil, men are evil. All Luddites should live in Cuba for a couple of years, and then profess the sourness of capitalism….they could do it, but their heart would know the truth. I’ll give you a C for mediocrity.
Luke,
Please come in out of the sun for awhile.
Luke,
After reading through all this a couple of times, I believe that Herman was exactly right. Your post does not evidence an understanding of capitalism or socialism or frankly a Biblical worldview. Bear in mind, I am not making a statement about you but about the ideas expressed in your post.
You say that capitalism and socialism are opposed yet strive for the same end. You are half right – they are opposed. Capitalism as a system seeks to check man’s sinful nature by bringing all his economic dealings under a standard of God-given moral law, applied equally to all. Socialism on the other hand is based on the idea that man’s nature is evolving and perfectible – that an enlightened government can control man’s destiny.
You say capitalism is evil, characterized by greed and sets money up as its idol. All false. True capitalism is a response to evil. It recognizes the greed of man and deals with it by a system of checks and balances – rewarding cooperative enterprises while the merely greedy will not continue to profit. Capitalism is more concerned with responsibility, freedom and justice than with money.
You say you reject money? Why? It is amoral. I find this claim hard to believe. Have you tried to live without it? You may as well reject food.
You say no society based on capitalism will stand (yes, I will throw it back at you). I argue that any society not touched in some way by capitalism will fall.
You say capitalism is self-centered and void of charity. What is your definition of charity? Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. Capitalism recognizes the worth of every man and calls him to strive to his fullest achievement. It rewards him for his efforts and calls him up instead of rewarding him for sloth and allowing his talents to atrophy. This is true charity – not some patronizing, pitying, false kindness that looks down upon individuals and saps their potential.
You seem to have a problem with the idea of reward for acts of charity when the whole tenor of scripture conveys that man will be rewarded according to his deeds. Read the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. The sheep were rewarded for their deeds of mercy and the goats were punished for their lack thereof. The passage in Luke you quote from deals with the proper attitude of the servant’s heart toward his master. It says nothing about whether the master will reward him and must be taken in context with the whole of Scripture.
I agree with you that maxing out Roth IRAs, etc should not come before extending mercy to the needy but may I point out that you cannot extend charity to others without first building wealth in some measure which you reject.
Isaiah 65:17-25 speaks of the New Heavens and the New Earth. I quote verses 21 and 22:
They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
What economic system does that sound most like to you?
Which brings me to socialism. First a quote:
“We socialists are not ashamed to confess that we have a deep faith in man and in a vision of a new, human form of society. We appeal to the faith, hope and imagination of our fellow citizens to join us in this vision and in the attempt to realize it. Socialism is not only a socioeconomic and political program; it is a human program; the realization of the ideals of humanism under the conditions of an industrial society.”
-Erich Fromm
You are right in calling socialism an evil. You are free to choose it in moderation as you say. I would challenge you to dig deeper before reaching your conclusion. The eighth commandment is “You shall not steal”. Socialism (even in moderation) is theft by threat and by violence. It arrogantly attempts to wrest control from the Creator and place it in the hands of man. It is the product of futile thinking. I will leave you with Dostoevski:
“For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God…”
sounds like you guys have read one too many ayn rand books. looks as though you objectivist, like her, appreciate the morality of selfishness. i keep trying to understand why you guys are all so quick to accept the norm simply because you know it as the norm. all i can figure is you don’t understand the system we have in place or your ability to live in it. did no one understand the paragraph in my response to herman which said,
‘but here is the kicker, we live in the system i quoined capitalistic socialism. the religious socialism movement (yes, socialism was led by church during the turn of the last century) essentially ended when roosevelt following keynesian economics implemented nearly every tenet of the socialism platform into law through the famous ‘new deal’. having now accomplished the democratic socialist agenda, america entered into a new era of economy know to capitalist as a ‘mixed economy’ and socialist as a ‘centrally planned economy’. the two are one in the same. ‘
you are damning the very system you live and breathe. while professing to love a system none of you have ever known. it doesn’t make since.
socialism sprung as a response to the immorality of captialism, not visa versa. the rampent and egregious labour abuses mixed with the boom and bust cycles which plagued laissez faire capitalism was critised by nearly everyone. and i dare say not one of the objectivist-capitalist in the room would defend it. the problem with socialism, ‘the dreamy-unicorns’ as i described it, is it attempted to set up a moral system inside an immoral world. it seems as though a thorough review of economic systems is in order.
i love the responses. keep it coming. seems to be the consensus that you all despise our economic way of life and feel the government is robbing blind of your money as well as civic and moral responsibilities. sounds like a bummer. well, you’d best do your homework, cause i’m coming strong in my next response.
lw
Since my brother is hard at work refuting all economic systems man has developed, I thought I would present his solution to our problems as best I can. As Neo-Luddites, I think we can offer some great alternatives to the whole problem of which economic stance to take. Unlike Socialism, we recognize that man is inherently bad, but we think that if he just did not possess the technology to harm others, he would not be able to. See, it is not money that is the problem, it is people. They are bad. We Luddites do not think that you can put people in a system that will fix them, instead, we think that we should get back to our more primitive roots, so to speak.
Pure Neo-Luddism is hard to define. This is so because we can not all agree on what level to eliminate technology. It is rather left up to the individual to decide for herself, which leads to several problems for me. I believe that all technology is bad. People are so pesky; they take anything that someone intended for good and manage to find a way to corrupt it. Take medicine, for example. You would think that of all things, medical advances would be for the good of society. This has been proven to be far from correct! We now use medicine to kill unborn children, to give women bigger boobs (which distorts our views of how women should look), to attempt to genetically alter our next generation, and by withholding medication to keep many populations of the world subservient to the West! You can see where this all goes- keep any technology and it leads to pain and chaos.
Many Luddites say that we should just go back to a specific time in history where things were better. I have tried to think of when that would be, but am unable to come up with anything. Some just want to eliminate a specific type of mechanization (which is where our movement started), others want to just control future advances. They fear the future, for all the evil it may bring! And are we wrong? I would say not- who knows what hell we humans could come up with?
So I propose that we get to the heart of the matter and quit bickering about non-issues. The real problem lies with how we use what we have. I know that I can not trust anyone to use things well, so I think we should just all eliminate technology. Why go half-way? I pity those that will not take their beliefs to their logical conclusion. So I am going to begin here at my house. I will start with eliminating, well, the house. And since Everett’s job depends on technology, we will eventually get kicked off the land we live on and have to find somewhere else to go. Since we won’t be wearing clothes, we will have to find someplace private and warm. We will also not be buying food, so we will have to either steal from others who are following corrupt ideas like laboring for wealth, or find a nice place that food naturally occurs in abundance. I will not be able to stay in contact with anyone, so you will probably just have to look for me in a nice warm cave, surrounded by fruit trees that is unoccupied and unowned. I can t think of where this might be, so help me out.
I really think that if we did not have stuff to kill people, and we all lived alone like hermits, things would be better. Some people point out the fact that Cain killed his brother Abel with only a rock. Well- what if he did not have the rock? See, just take technology away, and things automatically resolve themselves. This line of thinking eliminates the whole bother of living with others and all the messy details this engenders, like economics. And poverty. Those not able to find a nice place, would simply die. Would the rest of us not then be better off?
Some call this line of reasoning callous. To think that only those fortunate enough to have nice non-things like caves and fruit trees are selfish for not sharing, are just wrong. How can you share what you do not own? How can you provide for others if you have nothing to give, share, or create? See, this eliminates personal responsibility for others, because no worldview system really offers that kind of thinking, does it? I mean, not developing technology that can benefit others means that this same technology can not be use to hurt others either. Is it not better to live in such a way that rejects everything and not instead try to work within a corrupt system? Because we all know how people really are. And what can you do about that?
So don’t call me naive; don’t call me selfish; don’t call me hypocritical- just call me realistic. And if you want to call me anything, you will have to track me down, in, I don’t know, Eden.
I just have to observe how incredible my wife is and how freakin’ brilliant I must have been to pick her! (Happy Valentine’s Day Baby)
To Luke ( from the joy of debate and with all the love in my heart):
You are making assumptions about the beliefs of your dissenters. You mischaracterize our position(s) and then attack the mischaracterization. You may know this is called the straw man fallacy. You should try to respond to the actual arguments made.
I have never read a book by Ayn Rand. However, I have read about her philosophy and many of her quotes and she is misguided. You seem to be the one under the influence of her writing in that you must equate capitalism with selfishness as she did (and seem unable to view it from any other lens) only you correctly assess that selfishness is bad not good. So if your argument is against the faulty thinking of Rand and others, then perhaps you should make a new post and dismantle such arguments there.
It comes across as arrogant to assume we don’t understand economic systems or the mixed economy we have now without demonstrating that this is so from the arguments we present.
I don’t see where anyone has claimed that we operate under a totally capitalist system. And said mixed economy is not totally socialist either – so we cannot be ‘damning the very system we live and breathe’ as you say. You have yet to demonstrate that true capitalism is immoral as you claim or that you understand its essence. You seem to confuse it with Rand’s Objectivism.
No one here has said they despise our economic way of life or feel that the government is robbing us blind of money or responsibility – again, straw man fallacy.
Hopefully in your next response you will clarify your position and respond to the arguments made by your critics.
You guys are very interesting to read.
I had a philosophy teacher at bible college ,who was also my personal pastor while we were in upstate New York, warn me concerning my interest in various philosophical arguments, that they could become a “black hole” sucking in all the light. Our problem, he went on to say, was that we attempt through human reasoning to answer questions that can only be understood by revelation from the Holy Spirit. The more clever we become in our thoughts the further we are from our goal. “…pretending to be wise they became fools…”
I love a good discussion. Hey, I even like to argue. Having said that, I appreciate the wisdom shown by some of you. I even like the Luddite angle.
One thing I think all of us can agree, is that man’s sinful nature is the real problem. Sin is the source of all our woes in this present world. It’s not what ’s outside a man that corrupts him, but the evil that dwells inside. No man made system is going to meet the needs of mankind. I think the best we can hope for is to honor God in whatever our circumstance knowing He ultimately holds our fate in His hand. Everett accurately describes God’s expectation of His children. The good stewart is the one who increased what his master entrusted to him. In a socialistic society it may mean we are reduced to “doing” things only. In a capitalistic society we can also share our wealth. I thank God every day He placed me in the good Ole USA. I have freedom of worship[so far], freedom of association, economic freedom[with some socialist restraints] and freedom to post to blogs like this without fear of govermental retaliation. I can’t think of another country in this present world that provides this kind of life. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! Do evil men do evil deed for evil purposes…of course. This is a fallen world. But this system[capitalism} and this country have help more needy people, freed more captives, healed more sick, feed more hungry preached more of the gospel than any society in human history. You have to take the good and the bad and weigh them. Remember Jesus’ parable about the wheat and the tares sown in the same field. Eventually all will be judged. Until then they are going to grow side by side.
well said sir. that was very well said indeed.
I haven’t had time to properly digest all your words, Luke. But, on short reading it occurs to me that capitalism is not the problem. I believe that the problem is that those who adhere to it are not converted to a Christian life-authentically. If we truly live what we say we believe greed won’t lead. Earn and spend the money-on others!
When will the Riddle brothers take on secularism? Now there’s an enemy!
Still learning,
Aunt Sharon
Luke, Everett and all,
I have enjoyed reading the above article and subsequent responses. With your permission, I would endeavor to join the discussion (debate). To lay things out simply, I disagree with the ideas put forth by Luke, and so far (generally) agree with the responses of Everett.
I cannot speak to the Scripture, but I have written a response to the article. Luke – man is not evil. America is not pure Capitalist. Capitalistic Socialism is the economic ideal, and the current problem with American Capitalism is the distorted mindset that money is the goal. The mindset of the people needs to be shifted towards giving (producing) as the goal. You can read a more complete explanation on my website.
Please feel free to comment, respond, disagree, and discuss. I look forward to joining the discussion.
Regards,
Kuno