Tags
So in the comments to my last blog I had some outstanding questions that hit on the topics I really hoped to discuss. So rather than commenting only in the comment section I thought I would give my take on them in a separate blog.
Eric was the person who asked the questions and he has an outstanding blog himself that you can see here.
https://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/
We are both Christians but I think we have some different economic and political views. But let’s get to the comments and questions. For clarity I will put his comments in green and my views in blue.
Hi Joe, this is a very interesting post. I am intrigued why you posted this information. I am also interested that you have based your comments on wealth, not on any other measure of wellbeing – which I find curious because a christian surely knows that there are things more important than wealth.
Yes I absolutely agree with you. Certainly, I do not want people to think that wealth is what is most important to me and I would strenuously disagree with anyone saying that would be a Christian outlook. The reason I focused on wealth is because the policies I was mostly taking aim at were economic policies – such as minimum wage, socializing sectors of the economy, adding government regulation to what businesses can do etc. I do agree these policies can have impacts outside of the direct economic policy but those arguments tend to become more speculative.
In other words saying
- These countries have these economic policies and here is the empirical data on how their economy is doing.
seems more closely connected then saying
- These countries have these economic policies and here is there overall happiness measurements.
That is why I focused on the economic impact.
The reason I made the post is because I often see comparisons with tiny Scandinavian countries in discussion about the United States and what our economic policies should be. And the responses and arguments seem to revolve around whether these tiny countries are “socialist” or not. My view is they are more down the road of socialism than we are but drawing hard and fast rules on what is socialism is not all that fruitful.
The bigger problem with the comparison is that it is cherry picking in the extreme. That is the majority of countries in Western Europe that have economic policies that are much closer to socialism than the USA and on the whole they are overwhelmingly doing much worse than the USA. So I am suggesting that instead of just looking at the extremes maybe we should look at an overall picture.
So I am not saying lets focus on Greece or Norway but lets consider all the western European countries including Italy and Spain and France and the UK. I also would agree that Eastern European countries have some unique problems trying to get over the socialist disasters that they had to live through. So I am fine with not including former soviet bloc countries. I am fine with including or excluding Germany.
If you only take the top tiny countries then the better comparison would be to compare them with the top US states. And you will find that the top US states outperform them economically – with the exception of Luxembourg which is so small it is more like a town in the US rather than a whole state.
So there is another way of looking at these things. I have looked at some other factors globally, especially for the USA, Scandinavia and western Europe, and Australia (where I live).
Wealth inequality – measured in various ways as the gap or ratio between the rich and the poor. USA has more unequal wealth distribution than most European countries and certainly worse than Scandinavia and Australia.
Yes but as the Pew research shows that is because the US has many more prosperous people than those countries. They are more equal because they have fewer objectively prosperous people not because they have fewer lower income people. Objectively Western Europe has a much higher percentage of lower income people its just that they have so few objectively prosperous people they are more equal with each other.
To the extent we want to equalize we would want to make the poor more prosperous not the reverse. Do you agree?
GDP per person – highest in Europe and some tax havens, then USA (12th) and Australia (14th).
Highest in Europe? If by that you mean there are a few tiny countries in Europe that have higher gdp per capita than the whole US averaged out then yes. But if you mean Western Europe as a whole then you are very mistaken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
For 2019 the US is pegged to be a bit over 65k in gdp per capita. 65,281 by the world bank and 65,111 by IMF estimates. According to the IMF the only European countries above the US in GDP per capita are Ireland Norway Switzerland and Luxembourg. That is not even close to all of western Europe.
Just working off World bank numbers, Denmark would need to boost its economy by about 10% to match the US. Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Finland would have to boost their economy by about 20% to match the US. Germany and Belgium would need a 30% boost to match the US. The Uk would need to boost their economy slightly over 50% to match the US. France would need to boost its economy by over 60% to match the US. Italy, Spain and Malta would need to boost their economy by about 100% to match the US. Portuagal would need to boost their economy by 180% to match the US. Greece would need to boost their economy by 225%. I haven’t seen anyone take the populations of western Europe into account here but given Switzerland has a population of about 9 million, Ireland and Norway both have populations of about 5 million and Luxembourg has a population of about 620,000 it should be obvious that European economic policy is on the whole performing dramatically worse than US policy.
And it appears Ireland’s performance may be because they tend to go against the socialist model and had unusually low corporate taxes. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060316/why-ireland-sometimes-referred-tax-haven.asp. This has lead to certain US companies especially tech companies where it is hard to pin down where they are actually making money can claiming their income was generated there. So apple claims they made so much income in Ireland due to Irelands very favorable tax rate. This boosts the heck out of Irelands GDP. Irelands GDP per capita is boosted mainly due to US companies. Luxembourg is also considered a tax shelter for companies.
But on the whole the point is only a tiny number of tiny countries are doing better than the average state. Our best states our better and the average country in western Europe is considerably behind the US economically.
Now it is worth noting that in earlier years the US was doing worse. The main economic changes in recent years have been away from socialism and the European model. They involved tax cuts and less government regulation under republicans. In other words moving away from the European economic models was followed by a huge boost to our economy.
Happiness – highest in Europe and South America, whereas USA is among the lowest. The Nordic countries are consistently in the top ten and often the top 3.
Wellbeing (measures health and happiness) – USA 35th out of 169 countries, with European countries and Japan at the top.
Ok so obviously these studies are much more controversial on their own. Moreover, even if we accept them, it is getting harder to pin this on economic policy as opposed to overall cultural issues that are not so clearly related to minimum wage.
For example Nordic countries are small and homogenous. The fact that they are small means that people might feel they have some control in the way they are governed. In the US you saw people yelling at the sky when Trump was elected. We certainly have a feeling that we have no control over the federal government. I never even saw Washington DC until I was in my 40s. My vote and voice is watered down much more than a Norwegian citizens.
We also have a much more diverse citizenry. So it is not the case that we will all tend to agree on how we should be governed. All of this I suspect leads to less happiness. So is there an answer?
Yes. The answer is sticking to what we call federalism. Federalism means less power to the federal government and more power to the states, local government, and individuals. The U.S. federal government was intended to have very limited powers and most decisions were supposed to be made by states and more local governments. But the trend is to always look to the federal government for answers. Police departments are hired and fired at a city level – and to a smaller degree the state level. But somehow people are yelling at police in a completely different state (let alone city) for the actions of a single cop in a different city in a distant state. And our federal government is now going to try to make the rules for the whole country. I don’t think any American really feels they have any control over what will happen regardless of party affiliation. That is just an example, the loss of local control is happening throughout the spectrum of issues in the United States.
Even with respect to these economic policies that seem to be clearly failing Europe, I do not mind if a city or a state wants to implement a higher minimum wage as some have done. Or if Massachusetts wants a government run medical system they can have at it. If there are barriers to them doing that I am ok with changing it so they can. My main problem is that the Federal government wants to force it all over. My view is if local governments want minimum wage that is fine let’s see how it works for them, rather than destroying the whole countries economy.
Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy – highest include Scandinavia, Canada, Japan and Australia. USA is in the second of 4 categories.
Yes we eat lots of food that is really bad for us. But I am not sure socialist economic policies are the answer.
Everyone in the US has access to medical care. Sometimes the media will try to equate having health insurance with access to medical care. But those are different. The state will provide free health insurance for those who are deemed to poor to afford it. For those can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it – say a 25 year old who is in fine health and never feels the need to see the doctor whether they are insured or not – can go to a clinic as needed and pay for the service. If it is an emergency he can not be turned away even if he can’t pay. My area and the vast majority of areas in the US have free clinics for people who can’t afford care.
Gun deaths – USA is second to Brazil in absolute numbers and in top 20% per capita. USA is highest of all for gun suicides, lower for homicides.
Yes we have quite a bit of crime in the US. Not just “gun deaths.” Why are you including suicides? Increasing the minimum wage will if anything lead to more unemployed people and more crime. Or at least it is far from clear the increasing minimum wage or having other socialist policies will reduce that crime. The most socialist governments run our large cities and they have the most crime.
In the US we believe people have a right to defend themselves. And that is part of our bill of rights, in particular the second amendment. Europe seems fine with making its citizens completely at the mercy of government. That is part of the reason why Europe had to be bailed out from their horrible governments in the last century. The first thing authoritarians do is disarm the citizens. Hopefully, the US will never do that.
Suicide – USA is in top 20% as is Sweden. Australia and other Scandinavian countries are in 20-40%.
I’m not sure what the percentages mean. But to bring this to economic policy, being unemployed is a considerable risk factor for suicide. The US with its recent capitalist changes had reduced unemployment to record lows. It is unclear how reverting to the more European model and higher unemployment will help.
Quality of life – several indices have been used, based on factors like health & health care, wellbeing, education, human rights, etc. USA is not in the top 10, and just about all the countries in the top 10 are western European, including all the 4 Scandinavian. Australia and Canada are also there.
Again I would want to see the studies. Certainly if the studies are valuing socialist ideals that Europe Australia and Canada tends to promote then Europe will unsurprisingly do quite well. And also if you are going to look at tiny countries it might be best to compare them to states rather than the US as a whole. But some of these studies are interesting. Some are better than others.
So those statistics present another way to look at things. I think most people praise Scandinavia and western Europe not because they are sheerly wealthy, but because their wellbeing is high, people are happier, there is less inequality, they have good healthcare, and feel safer. It is not that different here in Australia.
I certainly agree with much of that. I am not that familiar with Australia’s economic model or governance.
If Europe is indeed on the whole better despite being objectively so much poorer, that is interesting. But I think when we look at economic policy the closest links to their efficacy will be on economic results.
If we want to look at overall “happiness” that might have more to do with culture. The US is the country that takes in more immigrants from more various countries/cultures than any other.
So it is in many ways unique. Comparing it with a country of 5 million people who all have about an identical cultural background is unlikely to be helpful. The comparisons should at the very least include all of Western Europe – even though the US is more diverse than even Western Europe and certainly as a country more diverse than any of those countries individually.
Having done the research, I intend to post about it on my own blog, where I’ll give all the references, if you are interested.
I’m very interested. And I look forward to it. I hope you do not cherry pick Europe’s best and ignore the European countries at the lower end of the scales you decide to use. But in any case I appreciate your comments and and questions as I think the discussion we are having is much more productive than arguing whether Sweden really is capitalist or socialist.
True and Reasonable 
Hi Joe, thanks for this detailed response. I won’t address all the details, but will instead make 4 points based on my latest “research” – see Money can’t buy health or happiness?
1. I stand by my comment that USA is not the richest country. According to the data I have seen, the top 15 countries for per capita GDP are (in order): Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda, Switzerland, Macau, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Qatar, Singapore, United States, Denmark, Australia, Sweden. I accept that most of them are small countries, and none (or probably even the total) are not as large as USA. But I wasn’t making a point when I wrote that, just presenting facts. But it isn’t actually important, so let’s move on.
2. Wealth isn’t a good measure of wealth. (!!!) Measuring per capita GDP is only part of the story. What matters is how far that money can go and how it impacts on life. It turns out that:
(i) Many European countries work far shorter hours per year than is required in USA (and Australia) to create that wealth, so that means that they are being paid more per hour, but choose to work shorter hours.
(ii) What can the money buy? USA is 14th globally in purchasing power. Again, most of the countries ahead of USA are smaller, but this is an important factor.
(iii) Healthcare is far more expensive in USA than anywhere else.
(iv) USA has the third highest rate of poverty in the OECD and the second greatest level of wealth inequality in the OECD (behind Mexico).
All these factors change the value of the GDP wealth, especially for the poorer worker. The workers get a smaller slice of the cake, their purchasing power is reduced and healthcare is less affordable for them. In contrast, Europeans generally worker far shorter hours for approximately the same purchasing power.
3. Money is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. We can argue what the real end should be, but most psychologists say it is wellbeing and a purposeful life. Wealth is well recognised as a poor measure of wellbeing. Other factors are more important for advanced countries, and on most of these factors, the USA performs quite poorly relative to other advanced countries.
(i) 46th in the world on life expectancy.
(ii) 34th in health.
(iii) 19th in happiness.
(iv) 34th in suicide out of 183 countries.
(v) 10th in per capita gun deaths.
(vi) Racial tensions (I don’t have a figure for it).
So whatever wealth USA has, it isn’t leading to quality of life for the country as a whole. The poor are working harder for a lower quality of life while the rich get the benefits.
4. When I wrote my comments, I was simply addressing the issues you raised with facts I didn’t think you’d considered. But now I see there is a strong political overtone to your two posts. You feel strongly critical of “socialism” and, I presume, very supportive of capitalism. I’m not sure how much to engage on that. I am already conscious of being critical of your country, something that doesn’t make me feel very comfortable. So I will just say two things:
(i) There are many advantages of living in countries you label as “socialist”. They generally have the highest levels of satisfaction and rate the highest on all measures of quality of life. My blog post has the details. Who cares about the label if people, especially the poorer people, are better off?
(ii) As a christian, we need to consider what Jesus and the apostles said in the New Testament. I’ll offer you a challenge. I am confident I can find more New Testament statements that support the views you label as “socialist” than you can find against them.
I’ll leave it there. I don’t want to be adversarial, and I fear this has become that. But I do think the full range of facts is worth considering. Money can’t buy health or happiness?. Thanks for the opportunity to interact.
Hi Eric
Thanks for your comments.
I think we have many different political views. But both you and I run blogs that are mostly dealing with Christianity. And I really think there is quite a bit of worthwhile discussion to be had about how a christian should look at politics and economics – assuming there is a “Christian way” to look at these things. I tend to think Christianity can play a role.
I am in favor of doing a deeper dive into facts. I think I understand the facts you present, as they have been the subject of much discussion here in the States. I think we may disagree on the relevance and or the weight given to different facts. I would very much enjoy having a discussion on these topics.
But perhaps let me say a few things from a larger point of view about any discussion of Christianity and politics/economics. Maybe you would agree or maybe you might disagree, either way I am interested in your view.
1) Christ was not a political leader. He was not here to tell us how governments should run or how to set up the economy. But of course if you think you have passages that suggest Christianity might directly direct us to socialism as opposed to capitalism I am willing to listen. Some passages from acts have been used in the past. I don’t think they really work but I am interested in your views.
2) Christ was very much concerned with our intentions and so saying someone who supports socialism is more or less christian than someone who supports capitalism can’t be answered unless we look at the motivations of where that persons heart is in recommending one system or another. People’s preferences for one system or the other may be Christian or it may be anti-christian depending on their motivations. If a person is motivated by personal greed to want capitalism that is not christian. If a person is motivated by envy/coveting a neighbor’s goods, to want socialism that is also anti-christian. I anticipate we both are motivated by *love* to recommend the system we advocate. And my view on that is we “love” someone when we “will the good” for them. I think we are both willing the good for society when we advocate our different political economic views. Lets keep that in mind even as we drill down on which positions really support “the good for society” and which will just simply satisfy the motivations of jealousy or greed.
3) No matter what situation you find yourself in you are called to be a good Christian and you can answer that call. So if I find myself in a socialist government that I want to avoid and/or you find yourself in a more capitalist government that you want to avoid we both should take heart that won’t separate us from God and we can be Christians in any circumstance. Indeed you could be a slave to the roman government and you can still be a good Christian.
I wonder what you think about that sort of framing. It was off the cuff so I wonder if you disagree or think I may be missing something.
I realize my tone is often a bit aggressive in part because I am a lawyer but in part I will admit I may be a bit defensive. Not only are certain american ideals being criticized in other countries but America is being bashed at home as well. As a 49 year old I feel especially blessed to have been born and raised in this country. I feel an obligation to future generations to pass on the blessings that I have enjoyed. I also feel that my generation has somehow dropped the ball in education about socialism and some basic ideas that have made America the sort of country so many people have felt blessed to live in. I have just reached a point where I feel it would be unchristian not to say hey hold on this is going to lead us into misery and socialists are only telling you a very small part of the story – when they talk about a few tiny Scandinavian countries but leave out Italy Spain Greece the UK France etc. Let alone situations where socialism really got out of control as it so often does in places outside of Western Europe.
That said I don’t take criticism of the united states personally. the US has committed its share of atrocities. I think it is very important that we always critically analyze our government and other institutions. I think that has been essential for the growth of the US. Lots of places do not have freedom of expression and there is a move to prevent that in in certain western democracies – both legally and de facto. We shouldn’t let that happen. We should remember that Christ himself was killed for his views.
I believe the facts strongly support the views I hold and I also think my posts raised some facts that I am still not sure you have considered. I will do another post where I will ask you why you did not engage with the facts I raised, or ask why I think you did not sufficiently engage the facts. If you think for whatever reason I seem unaware of facts you have offered or that I do not seem to fully appreciate their significance I would ask you to be patient with me (it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I misunderstood or missed something) and let me know, in your response.
I think it may be worthwhile to specifically address what if any role being a christian may have on these issues. You may be surprised how Christianity guides my views when it does and I likely might be surprised by yours.
For now I think perhaps this short article by Stephen Pinker might offer you some insight as to how I see the “inequality issue”
https://bigthink.com/big-think-books/steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-inequality-happiness
Pinker is on the left politically and he is definitely not a Christian. But I think his motivations are in line with Christian motivations of wanting the good for others.
Of course, we need not agree with everything he says but he has researched these issues very in depth so I think his arguments and the studies he uses in support of his position should at least be considered.
Hi Joe, thanks for this reply. I really do appreciate it. I don’t think you are aggressive. I think you have expressed some quite strong views (as I have) and I think you have been polite and patient (as I hope I have). So you don’t need to be concerned on that score.
And I have to say that while I have disagreed with much of what you have written previously, I agree with most of what you say here. Specifically:
1. I agree that, as christians, we need to frame the discussion in christian terms. What is most in accord with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and christianity generally? That is the basis from which I am writing, not from a political basis. This is only a short paragraph, but it relates to more than half of your comment here.
2. I agree with most of what Pinker says. I don’t think wealth inequality is the most important thing (although there are some clear teachings about equality in scripture e.g. 2 Corinthians 8:13-14, James 2:5-9). I think that quality of life, justice and mercy are more important. That was in fact why I first commented, because your first post seemed to be all about wealth and I was saying (1) if you are going to consider wealth, then you must consider inequality and buying power, and (2) there are more important factors to consider.
So now three matters I think we still need to discuss.
1.You say Jesus wasn’t a political leader, and that is obviously true. But he was executed by the state on charges that were ostensibly political. The statement “Jesus is Lord” is a political statement because the official belief was that Caesar was Lord. That was what made the Pharisees question in Matthew 22:15-22 so potent. And christians doing Jesus’ mission have run up against the state many times since then. As Archbishop Hélder Câmara said, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.”
2.I don’t think, and I don’t think I have suggested, that christianity can be identified with any political system. But I do think that following Jesus requires us to hold to certain ethical views. And I believe they are views that are also held by socialists more often than they are views that are also held by capitalists. Perhaps we should discuss that statement further?
3. One tactic of propagandists is to demonise their opponents with some label that they give all sorts of negative meanings to. Then they can demonise anyone holding any views in common with their stereotyping of that label. I think that has happened in the US and also more recently in Australia with the labels “socialism”, “Marxism” and a few other terms. So in some right wing media and even some christian sources in Australia, caring about climate change, refugees, treatment of indigenous people, care for God’s creation (= the environment), concern for the poor, etc, is often labelled as “greenie”, “bleeding heart” and more recently “Marxist”, “woke” and even “libtard”. Now it may be true that Marxists care for those things – but so should christians!.
Now I fear that you have been affected by this tactic, even though you are a christian (in fact my post on Blowing in the wind criticised US christians for just that). That is why in my comments to your response in that post I said “things you call socialist”, because they are not socialist to me, they are christian. Let’s discuss whether those things really are christian without using pejorative labels.
Thanks. I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Eric
You are being very charitable when you say I am not aggressive, I know better. But I very much appreciate your charity. I do try not to be brash when talking about religion and politics.
We are finding common ground no doubt as I agree with much of what you say. There may be some subtle but important differences. On Corinthians I certainly agree. The teaching there is very much in line with Christ addressing the wealthy man and telling him to give everything to the poor and follow him. I have argued that this is an example of how Jesus blew the top off of morality as compared with certain old testament laws. That is, Jesus did not think it was ok just as long as you do not murder your neighbor or not steal or covet. He calls us to love eachother as he loved us – that is be willing to give everything. And when the wealthy man knows he can’t commit that much that is what I call a lack of faith. I also lack faith, so I don’t commit that much. If I had complete confidence in Jesus and his command I would give everything. If I truly loved my neighbor as myself of course I would not withhold anything any more than I would withhold from myself.
In that passage Jesus also says anything is possible with God. So he remains firm in what he is calling us to do but he does not want us to completely lose hope even though our faith is imperfect. But this is perhaps the easiest way to see that most people are unwilling to fully embrace their faith. Although there have been Saints who had stronger faith and have done this.
But I do want to at least point out that Paul says I do not want you to do this from coercion. Socialism is coercion. If we are redistributing our wealth because the state will throw us in prison it is no longer Christian Charity. Nor does it build the sorts of bonds that charity builds. Intentions are important for Christians.
“I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.”
“And here is my judgment about what is best for you in this matter. Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so.”
Forcing others to give by electing socialists is not what Paul or Christ asked us to do – not by a long shot. They want us to do this on our own. And it seems that as governments demand more from people the people become less charitable to others on their own. It as though they think their moral imperative is relieved by paying taxes. That is not Christianity.
Just like the charity you gave me by saying I was not aggressive, means much more for me and for you because it was not forced. No laws forced you to say that and if they did your charitable words would dramatically lose value.
I know cynical people will say I am just saying this because I want to keep more money. But just like I had a sense you were to the left I also have a sense you have done charitable work. So I think you know how rewarding such charitable work really is for you and for the people you help. When you look back at your life it is likely the charity you gave freely to others will be some of what you consider your best accomplishments. This is not a lie. At a level I know this yet it can still be hard to live it out as fully as we like. I’m saying this, because I wish the good for others and I really do believe people will experience a good life by living a life of Christian charity.
Now with respect to your numbered points that we still need to discuss.
1) “Jesus is lord” may have been interpreted by some as a political claim at the time, but Christians don’t think he meant he was there to replace Caesar as a political ruler. I assume you do not think that is what he meant correct? He is lord in a much larger sense than Caesar. So again Jesus was not hear to be a political leader even though some misunderstood him to be one.
As far as Archbishop Hélder Câmara statement. No one thinks people are a communist just because he asks why people are poor. Indeed the same could be said of Capitalists. Why are venezualians poor? People say African Americans are poor in relation to whites and Asians Americans. But they are much more wealthy than Cubans or Venezuelans. Why is that? Indeed that is the point of my post. I am asking why western Europe is so much less wealthy than the USA. I don’t think that makes me communist. On the contrary Capitalists are all about asking why certain governments/economic systems lead to more poverty than others. Capitalism has all but eliminated hunger throughout the world. Socialism always leads to less prosperity. It may not be obvious in the Case of Norway but I suspect they would be doing even better if they did not have so much socialism. I say this based on the detrimental effects socialist policies have in so many other countries. The proof is there in all of the rest of Western Europe and of course things even get worse the more socialism takes hold.
2. I disagree that socialists tend to be more Christian. I believe socialists are often driven by jealousy. You see this in the rhetoric of sanders and AOC hating on millionaire and billionaires (although that may have just changed to billionaires after he was found out to be a millionaire himself). I mean here is a quick example:
https://reason.com/2019/01/28/are-billionaires-immoral-democrats-ask/
Somehow they are immoral for making lots of money. This is the same rhetoric you would hear from Stalin against the wealthy including the Kulaks. And Mao and Pol Pot etc. It is I believe largely driven by jealousy.
You can say capitalist are just greedy. But what does it mean to be greedy in the Christian sense? I think it means you are putting your wealth as being more important than God. And it is true that I am greedy on that definition as explained by the story of Jesus talking with the wealthy man. But when we talk about greed if I thought everyone would be wealthier with socialism I would promote socialism. I am not promoting capitalism just for myself but for everyone because it makes everyone more wealthy. The empirical evidence couldn’t be more clear.
3) I don’t think Marxist in 2020 care about poverty. If they did they would not advocate for socialism. Marxists care about power. Are Marxist countries especially concerned with the environment? North Korea the Soviet Union and China and Cuba? Is wealth evenly distributed in these countries or do the government workers and especially the heads of the government have more money?
Christians should care about people. If a policy will destroy the environment and hurt people that is a concern. If a policy will maybe (maybe not) help the environment but destroy livelihoods that is a counterbalancing concern.
Now you say I am falling for the tactic and calling people socialist to demonize them just like people calling Trump a fascist or a white supremacist.
You put “marxist” and “socialist” in scare quotes.
But here is the video from the founder of BLM saying she and the another founder (so at least 2 out of 3) adheres to marxist ideology herself.
Sanders and AOC also call themselves socialists. So why is it it demonizing them to use the label they give themselves?
Saying Trump is a racist when he says:
Do you see the difference between someone strongly rejecting a label but the party opponent giving them that label, and someone literally adopting a label and the party opponent acknowledging that label? I am not demonizing people when I acknowledge what they themselves label themselves.
Where did Trump ever say “I am (any sort) of fascist? Where did he say I want to make america racist?
Hi Joe,
I don’t feel I am being particularly charitable. I don’t feel you are aggressive. I do think you sometimes assume I think things that I don’t, and I have drawn attention to this once or twice, but that is something different.
“Forcing others to give by electing socialists is not what Paul or Christ asked us to do”
And neither is it opposed to what they say. For they don’t address the issue at all. They had no way to change the state. So the question for us is surely, what is most in keeping with their teachings, and what makes most sense in our modern world?
And the answer is very clear. We all know that unchecked individualism doesn’t work. We would quickly be overrun by stronger people, gangs, rogue states, etc. So we have all accepted that what works best is living under a government that makes laws. And part of that social contract is that we accept some loss of autonomy and freedom for the common good. We agree that we should drive on the designated side of the road and not wherever we choose. We agree that there be laws and courts, and police to enforce the laws. We agree that people have to abide by certain rules that restrict, for the common good. And an important part of that social contract is to protect the weak and powerless from any strong and powerful who would seek to harm them in any way. Might isn’t necessarily right.
Now if we decide that we should enter into such a social contract, it is a value judgment how far we take that social contract, what items are in it. So will we just make it illegal for powerful gangs to kill anyone, but allow any other use of power? Or will we prevent powerful unprincipled people from cheating, refusing to pay bills, etc? Will we make it illegal to falsely advertise? Will we disallow powerful monopolies? And so on. As a lawyer, you would be well familiar with all this.
Some of the decisions are pragmatic. If there is too great social inequality, then some desperate poor people will likely resort to violence or crime to make ends meet. So it may be more efficient (whether we regard it as moral or not) to provide some form of social relief and so reduce crime. Studies show this can happen in many cases.
So this is where I am quite surprised. Why would you, as a christian, want to draw the line as close to laissez faire as you can? Why would you label as “socialist” those who, like me, want to apply a little more compassion in where we set our laws? I honestly cannot understand it. Imagine standing before God one day and saying we didn’t want our government to help the poor very much because we thought it was “socialist”?
I said:
“Forcing others to give by electing socialists is not what Paul or Christ asked us to do”
Eric:
“And neither is it opposed to what they say.”
I think the answer is more nuanced. I definitely think it is not Christian to support socialism knowing the harms that invariably follow from it.
Also there like I said when I responded to your quotes from Scripture Paul wants us not to be coerced. He wants us to freely give. I think Christianity does teach that by freely giving our joy will be full. To the extent we can’t freely give that would mean we are limited in our ability to be christian.
Moreover given that socialism has a proven track record of making everyone poorer I just don’t think that is what they were going for. Christ wanted people to give their wealth to the poor not eliminate all wealth so we are all poor. That would just be mean. Christ wasn’t Igor.
“So the question for us is surely, what is most in keeping with their teachings, and what makes most sense in our modern world?
And the answer is very clear.”
Again I disagree. I think our dispute is between the American model and the European model. Both are quite close and talking about anarchy is not really relevant. No one is arguing for anarchy. I agree we give up some individual freedoms when we live in a government. Again that is not the issue.
The question is how many individual freedoms should be given up to the government.
And you say this:
“Now if we decide that we should enter into such a social contract, it is a value judgment how far we take that social contract, what items are in it. So will we just make it illegal for powerful gangs to kill anyone, but allow any other use of power? Or will we prevent powerful unprincipled people from cheating, refusing to pay bills, etc? Will we make it illegal to falsely advertise? Will we disallow powerful monopolies? And so on. As a lawyer, you would be well familiar with all this.”
You say other things, but what is odd, is you never seem to acknowledge that government can be evil. The same “people” that commit crimes and run monopolies, falsely advertise, cheat, are the same “people” we put in government.
Someone does not become an angel just because they are elected president or made a Judge or appointed to a bureaucracy. They are still the same sorts of people that run those cheating companies and commit other crimes. But when you make individuals powerless and give the government too much power catastrophes always follow. I mean we say authoritarian governments are wrong but it is not so much that they are wrong in theory it is that in practice they always end up horrible.
This blind spot in your thinking (not recognizing government officials are the same fallible humans that commit crimes etc) is the difference between European thinking and American thinking. And honestly it is amazing to me given how many times Europeans have suffered under tyrannical governments yet they keep thinking government is the answer to every problem.
Yes companies violating anti-trust laws are a problem so is companies cheating on taxes or not paying bills. But they pale in comparison to the problems created when you give too much power to government. The heinous crimes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Hugo Chavez and Maduro, Castro etc. etc etc etc. should if anything make that obvious.
It is like people think oh that happened to those Germans Russians Chinese Koreans and Cubans but that would never happen to us! Our leaders are righteous and just! Even as people cry about how terrible Trump is they never quite seem to make this connection: Yes I will grant he is terrible that is why government should not have that much power!
Our founders believed in being very vigilant in protecting what they considered essential individual freedoms such as the right to speech and assembly and the right to protect ourselves etc. They also tried to make clear that the federal government was only to have limited powers.
That has meant that Americans have not had the huge problems of tyrannical rule that Europe and other parts of the world keep having.
And only if you completely ignore all these obvious catastrophes of the last century – and the present you would say it is “very clear” we should take more rights/money/power away from individuals and turn them over to the government as socialism dictates.
“I honestly cannot understand it. Imagine standing before God one day and saying we didn’t want our government to help the poor very much because we thought it was “socialist”?”
People don’t dislike socialism because it helps the poor. They dislike it because it makes everyone poor often to the point of starvation.
If you haven’t read “the red famine” by Anne Applebaum I highly recommend it. You will see much of the same sorts of rhetoric used by current politicians was used then.
I also dislike socialism because it tends to ratchet up and once it gets too far invariably tragic and evil events happen on scales no individual could do alone.
I think at this point in 2020 if you said “God I supported socialism because I wanted to help the poor” even an all knowing God would wonder what the H were you thinking! 🙂
I mean come on it is one thing if you supported socialism in the 30s or even the 60s. But knowing what we do now in 2020? Even Karl Marx would be saying stay the H away from it.