G
How should a Christian view socialism?
- Thread starter BibleloverBill
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Laissez fair economics is not a free market economy, nor captialism ...btw.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority not really a good system either.
I agree and fortunately the United States is a republic and not a democracy.
Sentence #1 I'll have to do some more reading then, if I'm wrong I stand corrected. (what do you expect from 1, public high school civics class?)
Well who should be in charge then if not the majority effected the most?
Don't mis-understand just because I support the Democratic system and oppose the electoral collage dosn't mean I support the democratic party. I'm neutral so I concentrate on the issues not personalities or parties.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Good question, I am not sure what system gives all people a voice, counter balancing the effect of the majority always having their way?
Representational democracy or a Republic perhaps as opposed to a direct democracy which I think you actually wrote about.
Now in a small society perhaps a democratic system would work okay since there would always people who take various positions on issues, but in today's "group mind think milieu," the non conforming group is ruled by the majority, which is a problem when the majority leans towards lawlessness.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Because it's obsolete. We don't need elected officials choosing elected officials. And we no longer have couriers on horse back to deliver election results. If the system dosn't change soon it will decay just like Greece and Rome. The country needs a manager not a figurehead. I voted for Ford, Carter and Poirot. I abstained from 80 - 08 having no candidates that I would vote for and a revenge vote against someone is like choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. Obama was a disappointment and forcing a half hearted health care bill through was a disaster.
The Hilary campaign was a con. They offered to register me to vote online and I was new to Oklahoma. I wasn't going to vote for her anyway but I'm from Cali., wher we can register in a Wal mart parking lot. I didn't know it isn't legal here. I found out too late.
When Reagan was running for Calif., Governor in 68? He promised no tax hikes but immediately raised sales tax 33% from 3% to 4%. He later dismantled the mental health care system and put many patients incapable of making their own decisions into the streets. Then Bush vowed "No new taxes."
K
KnowMe
Guest
No to the adjective but there are egalitarian people in this world waiting for the Lord to return and in the mean time they concentrate on helping others. It's more avocation than a vocation because to us people are more important than profit.
K
KnowMe
Guest
Reminded me of a parable
Matthew 20
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing.6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumbleagainst the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
Matthew 20
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing.6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumbleagainst the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
I was reasonably certain that you did not support the Democratic party.
Even though the US is a republic consisting of 50 sovereign states it is guided by democratic principals with checks and balances, including the electoral college that allow for those in the minority to be heard and counted for also in representation.
To remove the electoral college and replace it with electing a president exclusively with a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment to be ratified. I don't really see that happening in our lifetime.
I'm basically a life-long Republican but developing Independent tendencies. The main thing about the Democratic party I despise are they are pro-death of the innocent unborn and trending now towards euthanizing babies that are just born that are not wanted or possibly have some sort of birth defect. I will not vote for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, that supports and promotes abortion. My position on this is set in stone and will never change. If Hillary was pro-life I could see myself voting for her in the 2016 general election over Donald Trump, who in reality is neither Republican or Democrat but rather is just a shrewd narcissistic businessman who always gets his way regardless of who gets hurt in the process.
My wife and I had an agreement in that I would not vote for Trump and she would not vote for Hillary. I did a write-in vote for Bernie Sanders who, even though he is a socialist and pro-death he had no chance of actually winning because of my vote and I generally find him amusing in an odd sort of way. I found out later that my wife reneged on our agreement and voted for Hillary anyway. The reason that she lost is because she had no message but ran her entire campaign in maligning Trump.
The same thing is going to happen again in 2020 as that still seems to be the theme of those who have declared their intention of seeking the presidency. Out of this crowed field only Crazy Joe and Bernie have any real chance, even though either one will lose because they are perceived as fossils and out of touch.
I am going to predict that Trump dumps Pence as his running mate. In the end this will cost him a lot of votes with the evangelicals but he will prevail in a close general election in 2020.
I really got steamed when they pardoned Nixon but I think Ford did a good job rescuing the train wreck that Nixon left behind. When the local cable charge reached about $175 per mo. I elected internet only so I miss most of the rhetoric and propaganda from both sides. Any logical thinking person that pays attention, will soon figure out that Bernie's ideas are economically improbable.
The Fed. Reserve isn't about to surrender their choke hold on the economy and we can't just make everything free. Whoever is left with the bill will lose some freedom and a lot of money. I don't know squat about Crazy Joe so I will abstain from Politician's and just choose between right or wrong issues like abortion, education and infrastructure. Based on spiritual principles. Not politics or economics. That is if those issues are even on the ballot.
The Fed. Reserve isn't about to surrender their choke hold on the economy and we can't just make everything free. Whoever is left with the bill will lose some freedom and a lot of money. I don't know squat about Crazy Joe so I will abstain from Politician's and just choose between right or wrong issues like abortion, education and infrastructure. Based on spiritual principles. Not politics or economics. That is if those issues are even on the ballot.
The people will only put up with extremism so long before they rebel. That's part of the reason Trump got elected but they made a mistake. The Bernie Bros will have a leg up but the capitalist's won't stand for Bernie's nirvana as it will take money for them. They also have the funds to outspend him. Time will tell.
Hey @UnderGrace , fresh from bing answers>
Laissez-faire economics is defined as a situation with minimal government intervention. Under laissez-faire, governments and regulators ‘leave alone’ private firms to allow them to make decisions about production and output. In particular, laissez-faire involves zero / minimal government intervention on issues such as regulation, taxes and tariffs.
From Wikipedia just now>
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.[1] Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. In an idealized free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy.
Scholars contrast the concept of a free market with the concept of a coordinated market in fields of study such as political economy, new institutional economics, economic sociology and political science. All of these fields emphasize the importance in currently existing market systems of rule-making institutions external to the simple forces of supply and demand which create space for those forces to operate to control productive output and distribution.
Although free markets are commonly associated with capitalism within a market economy in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have also been advocated by anarchists, socialists and some proponents of cooperatives and advocates of profit sharing.[2] Criticism of the theoretical concept may regard systems with significant market power, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry as less than free, with regulation being necessary to control those imbalances in order to allow markets to function more efficiently as well as produce more desirable social outcomes.
What's the difference?
Laissez-faire economics is defined as a situation with minimal government intervention. Under laissez-faire, governments and regulators ‘leave alone’ private firms to allow them to make decisions about production and output. In particular, laissez-faire involves zero / minimal government intervention on issues such as regulation, taxes and tariffs.
From Wikipedia just now>
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.[1] Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. In an idealized free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy.
Scholars contrast the concept of a free market with the concept of a coordinated market in fields of study such as political economy, new institutional economics, economic sociology and political science. All of these fields emphasize the importance in currently existing market systems of rule-making institutions external to the simple forces of supply and demand which create space for those forces to operate to control productive output and distribution.
Although free markets are commonly associated with capitalism within a market economy in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have also been advocated by anarchists, socialists and some proponents of cooperatives and advocates of profit sharing.[2] Criticism of the theoretical concept may regard systems with significant market power, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry as less than free, with regulation being necessary to control those imbalances in order to allow markets to function more efficiently as well as produce more desirable social outcomes.
What's the difference?
U
UnderGrace
Guest
U
UnderGrace
Guest
I'm a thinking person like you. Perhaps you can change my mind. You may paraphrase since I don't feel much like reading an encyclopedia.I knew you would ask too!!!
Besides in US history the taught us the Great depression was caused by laze fair economics, Careless and corrupt banking practices and reckless commodity's trading. Not to mention poor farming techniques resulting in the final blow. The dust bowl.
J
jaybird88
Guest
the few control everything, the masses have little say in anything. same monster different mask.
The problems with Rome had nothing to do with a free market economy, same with the USA....that is just silly.
our (usa) markets a hardly free, the rich have the government in their pocket and manipulate the markets at will. read about prestin tucker or john delorean. what happened to them is what happens when you try and compete with the wrong people. thats not a free market.