Is Canada going communist?

[BeaverFever]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Canada is a kind of mixture or hybrid of Capitalism and Welfarism.  Some people refer to a welfare state as Socialist.  To a degree that is true of Canada.  Government employs over 300,000 employees in the federal government to provide services of various kinds.  That is government control and therefore a form of Socialism.  There are many different social services that are controlled by government.  That means Canada is not a pure Capitalist system, but is partially Socialist.  But because it provides money and services for many things and spends hundreds of billions on them, it is also a welfare state.   Since it has endless regulations and red tape for countless things, it is also an authoritarian state.

So basically you’re saying that every country currently in existence is socialist. Except maybe places like Somalia and Haiti. You’ve got it all wrong. 

[herbie]

"welfarism"

Let's coin some more new words, eh? Assign them negative meanings while we're at it.

Act like money to people on welfare, social assistance, EI, pensions is just money burnt.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The problem is people like you expect government to provide everything imaginable, including free diapers and free hard drugs for everyone.

Are you in favour of public healthcare?  

Edited November 22, 2023 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Are you in favour of public healthcare?  

We don't have a choice.  That is the only system available in Canada.  We pay for it through taxes. 

A private system might be more efficient with no long waiting lists for some things and we could pay for it by private health insurance if it existed.  That might be better for some health care services where the service is poor now.  But that is not going to happen because the government outlawed private health care except for very rare situations.  Our public health care system is not the best in the world.  There are lots of problems with it.

Edited November 22, 2023 by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

To whit and hot off the press:  the Harper government’s memorial to “the victims of communism” is riddled with Nazis. You see in WW2 the Nazis lost 75% of their military on the Russian front, technically making the Nazis also “victims of communism”   The Harper conservatives will honour nazis killed by communists but not communists killed by Nazis even though in WE2 the Nazis were the enemy and the communists were the allies  

 

Victims of Communism memorial could damage Canada's reputation if Nazi collaborators included in those being honoured: documents

The memorial is supposed to honour those who suffered under communism and will include a wall of remembrance.

 

The Victims of Communism memorial to be unveiled in Ottawa next year has the potential to damage Canada’s reputation and cause tensions with foreign governments if Nazi collaborators are inadvertently honoured on the monument.

The warnings from Canadian diplomats in 2021 foreshadow some of the criticism the federal government faced in September when MPs gave two standing ovations to a Ukrainian Canadian veteran who served in Hitler’s Waffen SS. That move was met with international ridicule and anger.

The Victims of Communism memorial is supposed to honour those who suffered under communism and will include a wall of remembrance, which will allow 600 names of individuals, groups or events to be listed.

But concerns have been raised by Jewish organizations that names of eastern Europeans who collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust have been put forward in an attempt to whitewash their past.

Government officials have already identified some individuals who served with the Waffen SS among those names submitted, according to the federal documents obtained by this newspaper under the Access to Information law. Other alleged Nazi collaborators associated with the memorial have also been identified by the Department of Canadian Heritage, but the exact number is censored from the records.

“It is important to note that many anti-communist and anti-Soviet advocates and fighters were also active Nazi collaborators, who committed documented massacres,” Global Affairs Canada officials warned their counterparts in Canadian Heritage.

“We anticipate that the listing of names that are not thoroughly vetted and the result of a broad consensus could generate significant controversy both in Canada and abroad” the diplomats added.

Private donations have already been made to the monument in the names of Nazi collaborators, the CBC reported in July 2021. Those include Roman Shukhevych, a Ukrainian nationalist whose troops murdered Jews and Poles, as well as Ante Pavelić who ran a Nazi puppet regime in Croatia and is considered a chief perpetrator of the Holocaust in the Balkans, the CBC noted….Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians were recruited by the Nazis for use in various militias and police groups that helped round up and execute Jews, and those records are incomplete. “GAC is not in a position to assess or vet the names of foreign nationals from Eastern and Central Europe that are being proposed,” the diplomats warned.

…

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/victims-of-communism-memorial-could-damage-canadas-reputation-if-nazi-collaborators-included-in-those-being-honoured-documents

 

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We don't have a choice.  That is the only system available in Canada.  We pay for it through taxes. 

A private system might be more efficient with no long waiting lists for some things and we could pay for it by private health insurance if it existed.  That might be better for some health care services where the service is poor now.  But that is not going to happen because the government outlawed private health care except for very rare situations.  Our public health care system is not the best in the world.  There are lots of problems with it.

Are you in favour of taxpayer funded healthcare?  

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We don't have a choice.  That is the only system available in Canada.  We pay for it through taxes. 

A private system might be more efficient with no long waiting lists for some things and we could pay for it by private health insurance if it existed.  That might be better for some health care services where the service is poor now.  But that is not going to happen because the government outlawed private health care except for very rare situations.  Our public health care system is not the best in the world.  There are lots of problems with it.

Are you in favour of taxpayer funded healthcare?

I already answered that in detail. It doesn't matter what I am in favour of.  We have only a public system and there is no choice.   

But I don't think government and government-funded bureaucracy is capable of providing the best health care.  Millions of people don't have their own doctor.  They don't have any choice.

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I already answered that in detail. It doesn't matter what I am in favour of.  We have only a public system and there is no choice.   

That’s like saying “I don’t have an opinion on abortion because it’s legal in Canada”.  This is a cop-out to avoid the question.  

 

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But I don't think government and government-funded bureaucracy is capable of providing the best health care.  Millions of people don't have their own doctor.  They don't have any choice.

Do you have enough money to buy your own healthcare if it was private?

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s like saying “I don’t have an opinion on abortion because it’s legal in Canada”.  This is a cop-out to avoid the question.  

 

Do you have enough money to buy your own healthcare if it was private?

I already explained that.  Everyone would have to have private health care insurance.  Without insurance you cannot afford the care if you need to go to the hospital or need medical procedures.  I would pay for private care and we would not be paying taxes for a public system. That's the way it works.  People who are incapacitated and cannot work, would receive the government-funded coverage.

Nobody buys their own healthcare.  That's not how private health care works.  It's all paid for by insurance companies.

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I already answered that in detail. It doesn't matter what I am in favour of.  We have only a public system and there is no choice.   

But I don't think government and government-funded bureaucracy is capable of providing the best health care.  Millions of people don't have their own doctor.  They don't have any choice.

Its not fully accurate to say “Government funded bureaucracy” PROVIDES healthcare. Health care providers are private or non-profit. Doctors are private businesses who bill insurance for their services. The government bureaucracy is the health insurance,  not the provider. Hospitals are more of a complex picture. They are privately run but organized and funded by government, which of course affects how they are run. . 

Edited November 22, 2023 by BeaverFever

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Its not fully accurate to say “Government funded bureaucracy” doesn’t PROVIDE healthcare.

That's not what I said.   I said "But I don't think government and government-funded bureaucracy is capable of providing the best health care."  Layers of bureaucracy and layers of administration are an impediment to providing good, efficient and timely health care and take a huge chunk out of the health care budget.  Also, there is less incentive to do things faster or efficiently when the system is run by government and bureaucrats.  Why should they think of efficiency when they all get paid the same regardless of whether the system is slow or rapid and efficient?  I could give you personal examples of the long waiting times involved between tests and procedures that happens in B.C.  Cancer does not wait to spread and heart disease does get worse if untreated quickly.

Edited November 22, 2023 by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That's not what I said.   I said "But I don't think government and government-funded bureaucracy is capable of providing the best health care."  Layers of bureaucracy and layers of administration are an impediment to providing good, efficient and timely health care and take a huge chunk out of the health care budget.  Also, there is less incentive to do things faster or efficiently when the system is run by government and bureaucrats.  Why should they think of efficiency when they all get paid the same regardless of whether the system is slow or rapid and efficient?  I could give you personal examples of the long waiting times involved between tests and procedures that happens in B.C.  Cancer does not wait to spread and heart disease does get worse if untreated quickly.

Correction I don’t know how the word “doesn’t” got in there.  Fixed. But the point is health care providers are not government bureaucracies.
 

Also the health stats show health outcomes are better than the US system because there people can’t afford adequate private treatment 

[SkyHigh]

On 11/1/2023 at 8:17 PM, blackbird said:

.If you oppose Christianity you are setting yourself up to be taken over by a Socialist dictatorship

Could you please show what in scripture supports your contention that Christian values don't align with socialism. Thank you 

[SkyHigh]

I just bought a 300$ pair of shoes online getting shipped from overseas, seems to me we're a long way from anything that isn't capitalism 

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Could you please show what in scripture supports your contention that Christian values don't align with socialism. Thank you 

"

Socialism is theft. A majority that votes to redistribute wealth at gunpoint does not make it any less so. It is a violation of the 8th and 10th commandments. It should therefore come as no surprise that support for socialism has grown among an increasingly secular and godless people. A fatherless people will look to the state for provision, and a churchless people will look to the state for charity. Socialism will bring utter ruin on society, and Christians should have no sympathy for such a wicked system."

"

All Forms of Socialism Are Theft

Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: 

You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).

This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:

You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).  

God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property."

The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture

[BeaverFever]

27 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Could you please show what in scripture supports your contention that Christian values don't align with socialism. Thank you 

He thinks Jesus was a spoiled billionaire who liked to grab’em by the p*ssy and shout “greed is good”.  
 

Jesus was being sarcastic when he said “it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven “  and “sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”. 

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"

Socialism is theft. A majority that votes to redistribute wealth at gunpoint does not make it any less so. It is a violation of the 8th and 10th commandments. It should therefore come as no surprise that support for socialism has grown among an increasingly secular and godless people. A fatherless people will look to the state for provision, and a churchless people will look to the state for charity. Socialism will bring utter ruin on society, and Christians should have no sympathy for such a wicked system."

"

All Forms of Socialism Are Theft

Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: 

You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).

This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:

You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).  

God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property."

The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture

If “socialism” is theft then all taxes are theft. You cannot opt out of having your taxes go to garbage collection and throw your trash in the street. You cannot opt out your taxes paying for road maintenance simply because you don’t own a car or from schools simply because you don’t have kids. And so on. Is that “theft”?  
 

Charities and “fathers” can’t come close to providing the necessities of life that’s why people live in cities and communities and formed countries in the first place. Leave it to a bible-thumper to take things to its absurd extreme conclusion. 

[SkyHigh]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"

Socialism is theft. A majority that votes to redistribute wealth at gunpoint does not make it any less so. It is a violation of the 8th and 10th commandments. It should therefore come as no surprise that support for socialism has grown among an increasingly secular and godless people. A fatherless people will look to the state for provision, and a churchless people will look to the state for charity. Socialism will bring utter ruin on society, and Christians should have no sympathy for such a wicked system."

"

All Forms of Socialism Are Theft

Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: 

You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).

This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:

You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).  

God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property."

The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture

Capitalism is built on coveting

Ie; keeping up with the Jones

Capitalism is also built on theft, particularly when it comes to property 

Ie; look at how many hard working people have to rent because the rich own all the property

What about....

Galatians 6:2 carry each other's burdens this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

Or Acts 2:44-45 all the believers were together and had everything in common, selling their possessions and goods giving to anyone in need

Or of course Mathew 22:22 render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar

You should actually try reading the Bible not just listening to how other people interpret it so they can enrich themselves., because you sir do not know Christ 

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

He thinks Jesus was a spoiled billionaire who liked to grab’em by the p*ssy and shout “greed is good”.  
 

Jesus was being sarcastic when he said “it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven “  and “sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”. 

I think he thinks Jesus was a white guy from the Americas, maybe a cowboy or something like that 

[herbie]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

the Harper government’s memorial to “the victims of communism”

Spending public funds on shit like this and whining about the CBC.... cornservative values...

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

What about....

Galatians 6:2 carry each other's burdens this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

This is speaking about individual charity, not state ordained theft.

There are other verses that speak about individual charity as a good and desirable thing.  But never about forced confiscation of wealth to redistribute to society.  You will have to go to some book on Robin Hood to find that or Karl Marx.

Private property is protected in the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy as I pointed out.  How do you ignore that?  Those are central commandments.

"

The Bible is Against Socialism and Communism

Christians must oppose socialism and communism, for these systems of economy and governance are contrary to God’s design of both man, government and economy. Socialism is antithetical to the very nature of both God and man. By creating man in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27), God created man with perfect free-agency -- the power to choose. Free agency is one of our greatest gifts from God. Socialists hate the notion of "rugged individualism," for it emphasizes the strength of the individual over the collective. Under socialism and communism, personal freedom is sacrificed for the "greater good" of government and society.

by Tim Haile

Karl Marx defined socialism as the step between capitalism and communism. Under socialism, all property and means of production are owned and controlled by the society (the community). Of course, without free-market forces balancing supply and demand, some person or group of people must eventually plan the economy. This opens the door to the central planning of communistic or other totalitarian forms of government. For central planning to work, all members of the collective must allow the planners to make all decisions about what is to be produced, grown and manufactured.

Planners must also be allowed to decide how much of each item is produced. In the past, miscalculations, ineptitude, inefficiency and indifference on the part of the planners has resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of people. It should also be noted that socialism empowers the ruling class to direct state-sponsored violence and persecution against potential threats to the system. History contains many examples of such persecution being directed against people on the basis of political, ethnic and religious differences. Along with the millions who have starved to death because of socialistic policies, millions of others have been deliberately slaughtered."

The Bible Against Socialism and Communism (hope-of-israel.org)

 

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Or Acts 2:44-45 all the believers were together and had everything in common, selling their possessions and goods giving to anyone in need

"

This point is even clearer in Acts 4-5. The NIV translation of Acts 4:34b-35 says, “From time to time, those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet.” Blomberg comments:

Again we have a rash of imperfect verbs here, this time explicitly reflected in the NIV’s “from time to time.” The periodic selling of property confirms our interpretation of Acts 2:44 above. This was not a one-time divesture of all one’s possessions. The theme “according to need,” reappears, too. Interestingly, what does not appear in this paragraph is any statement of complete equality among believers.

John Stott affirms Blomberg’s conclusions on property in the early church, also underscoring Luke’s use of the imperfect tense:

Neither Jesus nor his apostles forbade private property to all Christians. . . It is important to note that even in Jerusalem the sharing of property and possessions was voluntary . . . It is also noteworthy that the tense of both verbs in verse 45 is imperfect, which indicates that the selling and giving were occasional, in response to particular needs, not once and for all.

There is also sufficient reason to believe that the early followers of Christ did not sell all they had, but rather occasionally sold part of their possessions and gave the proceeds to the apostles for distribution. For example, in Acts 5, Ananias sold a piece of property (v. 1) and kept a portion of the proceeds for himself and his wife, Sapphira. The problem was not that they were required to sell their possessions and give all of the proceeds of their land to the apostles, but that Ananias lied about the true price he received for the land (v. 7). Peter points out that he could give or keep the money as he saw fit (v. 4) but still lied to Peter and to the Holy Spirit (v. 5).

But even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that all believers sold all their possessions and redistributed them among the community, this still would not prove socialism is biblical. The next two reasons explain why.

The act in Acts was totally voluntary — Socialism implies coercion by the state, but these early believers contributed their goods freely. There is no mention of the state in Acts 2-5. Elsewhere in scripture we see that Christians are even instructed to give in just this manner, freely, for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:8). Even if the believers sold all their possessions and redistributed them among the community, this still would not prove socialism is biblical, since the state is not the agent selling property to those in need. There is also plenty of indication that private property rights were still in effect, therefore this was not even even be considered socialism if the term were used to refer to a regulated system of community ownership.

The narrative was not a universal command. — To prove Acts 2-5 commands socialism, you would have to show that this historical precedent is a mandatory prescription for all later Christians. You cannot get the imperative (all Christians should do this) from the indicative (some early Christians did this). The fact that some Christians “shared all things” does not constitute a command that all Christians should follow their example, because it is not clearly taught in passages of Scripture elsewhere."

Does the Book of Acts Command Socialism? (thegospelcoalition.org)

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Mathew 22:22 render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar

"

"Wait a minute!" you say. "Didn't Jesus answer, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's when the Pharisees tried to trick him into denouncing a Roman-imposed tax?" Yes indeed, he did say that. It's found first in the Gospel of Matthew, 22:15–22, and later in the Gospel of Mark, 12:13–17. But notice that everything depends on just what truly did belong to Caesar and what didn't, which is actually a rather powerful endorsement of property rights. Jesus said nothing like "It belongs to Caesar if Caesar simply says it does, no matter how much he wants, how he gets it, or how he chooses to spend it."

The fact is, one can scour the Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb and find nary a word from Jesus that endorses the forcible redistribution of wealth by political authorities. None, period."

Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus A Socialist? - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Capitalism is also built on theft, particularly when it comes to property 

Complete nonsense.  Capitalism or free enterprise is perfectly honest.  There is of course organized crime in the world.  But honest dealings is promoted in the Bible.  There is nothing wrong with free enterprise or Capitalism as long as no laws or criminal behavior is involved.

As long as property is earned and purchased honestly, there is no theft involved.  It is ridiculous to say Capitalism is theft.  So nonsensical.

Edited November 23, 2023 by blackbird

[eyeball]

Is Canada going communist?

What do you mean is, I thought Canada went communist decades ago?

[BeaverFever]

Meanwhile Putin’s state-owned TV is praising the election victory of far-right Gert Wilder in The Netherlands. The fact that Putin, Tucker Carlson and every far right group in the west have mutual love for each other kinda blows holes in any absurd claim that Putin is somehow a leftist or socialist.