Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

"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. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights.

Everyone understands this concept. No one likes others stealing their belongings, and they therefore do things to prevent theft, such as lock their door at night. It is also the case that every civilized society prohibits theft. People have property rights, and the government should protect such rights.

Yet this all breaks down for many people when the government gets involved. It is wrong for Bob to take a quarter of your income. But if Bob and his friends lobby the government, politicians pass legislation, and the government gives one quarter of your money to Bob, then all is right.

This is exactly how the typical Western welfare state works. The government enacts a variety of taxes (sales tax, income tax, FICA, tariffs, etc.) and then redistributes the money to a variety of classes (the poor, students, elderly, disabled, politically well-connected, etc.). But this is not called “theft” because, well, the government says so. This situation exposes one of the chief flaws of democracy, a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner.

Thus, modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable.

Christians are enabling this problem by limiting the 8th commandment to individuals instead of societies. However, the 8th commandment provides no such limitation. Groups are made up of individuals, and stealing is still stealing when done by a group.

Is Taxation Ever Allowed?

Some will respond, “Following this logic, are not all taxes and government programs theft?” One possible response is yes, which has some appeal due to its consistency (the view of anarcho-capitalism). However, a more biblical response is that some taxes are legitimate because some government functions are legitimate. Thus, we need to understand the proper role of civil government.

It is important to understand that God designed government to enforce what are known as “negative rights.” You have a right to not be killed or stolen from. Hence the “negative.” But you do not have a right to food or shelter or anything else that belongs to someone else. You have to work for these things and buy these things through voluntary exchange. Thus, it is warped when it is said that humans have a “right” to things like healthcare or education.

The only “positive rights” are those which are owed you out of a contract (such as the benefits of an insurance policy if certain conditions are met). And government does have an obligation to enforce such contracts. This is the only role of government in regard to positive rights. The government does not owe you any good or service, contrary to what socialists like to claim.

God’s institution of civil government has a purpose, and that purpose is to protect property rights. In other words, God has designed the state to enforce the 8th commandment (as well as the 6th, 7th, and other commandments). It is all great when nobody steals. But people are sinful and steal/murder/destroy, and that is where government comes in. Of course, we have a problem when government is the one doing the stealing.

If government is to protect property rights, then government is going to need enforcers of the law. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate for government to have police, judges, a court system, governors, and a military. Taxes that fund such things are taxes that uphold property rights. These taxes go to benefit all of society and in no way “redistribute wealth.” These are legitimate taxes and are not prohibited by Scripture.  

These are the sort of taxes Paul has in mind in Romans 13:1-7 when he speaks of the governing authorities that God instituted to “punish evil” and “reward the good.” Paul ties taxes here to a civil government that punishes crime. He says nothing about the morality of taxes at a high rate as part of a governmental redistributory scheme.

Some cite Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an all-out endorsement of government taxation (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). However, that is not what these words teach. The Jewish leaders were seeking to trap Jesus among the Romans (who required the tax) and the Jews (who opposed Romans taxation). Jesus outsmarted His opponents by making reference to Caesar’s picture on the coins—“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (Matthew 22:20). The answer was “Caesar’s.” So Jesus responded, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).  

This was not a wholesale endorsement of Roman government, nor was this a discourse on the morality of taxation. Rather, Jesus actually endorsed property rights by distinguishing between that which belongs to Caesar and that which does not. Contrary to popular claims, Jesus was not a socialist. "

The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture

Socialists claim the public health care system is good because it ensues health care to everyone.  However, as it turns out, it leaves thousands per year dying on waiting lists for care.  Socialists strangely ignore this and blindly press on with their ideology of not allowing any private care as well as the public health care system.  Allowing some private care would take the heavy burden off the public system by allowing people that can afford it to purchase private health care insurance.  There are lots of people with the money who would be willing to pay for private health insurance.  But the radical leltists and unionists refuse any compromise.

  • Like 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

And Jesus was a bohemian because we know he hung out with hookers and other ne're do wells.

He couldn't stand grotesque income inequality because he knew there was nothing more toxic to a community.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And Jesus was a bohemian because we know he hung out with hookers and other ne're do wells.

 

He might not have been a bohemian. He could have been a democrat

Quote

He couldn't stand grotesque income inequality because he knew there was nothing more toxic to a community.

Actually what he said is that if you tithe 10% then you have given everything that you need to regardless of your income. But the left-wing thinks their god instead of Jesus so they want closer to 50 :) 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And Jesus was a bohemian because we know he hung out with hookers and other ne're do wells.

He couldn't stand grotesque income inequality because he knew there was nothing more toxic to a community.

Jesus wanted people to give money to the poor and be charitable.  He never said there should be government people with guns forcing people to give their money or else violence and bars.

I think socialism, when its fair and reasonable in modest amounts, is moral, but it is theft.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I think socialism, when its fair and reasonable in modest amounts, is moral, but it is theft.

Because governments tax us?

Fine, lets get rid of the thieves and go back to nature.

 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I think socialism, when its fair and reasonable in modest amounts, is moral, but it is theft.

You are correct in saying it is theft.  Taxation for basic services that individuals cannot provide is reasonable.  Things like police, armed forces, fire departments, roads, water, and sewer.   I would not call that Socialism.  Just basic services.

"But modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable."

Posted
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Taxation for basic services that individuals cannot provide is reasonable. 

Why should I be forced to pay to protect individuals who can't provide for their own protection?  That's pretty much the core definition of being woke if you ask me.

  • Haha 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
8 hours ago, Gaétan said:

The Socialists are like the hero Robin Hood

Yes fictitious.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Without law enforcement I would just kill you and take your stuff. 

 

That would be theft. And it would be the opposite of socialism, which pays for law enforcement.

The evil prince john taxed the people into oblivion to benefit the state, and robin took their money back. 

John and the sherrif were the socialists. Robin was a conservative. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The evil prince john taxed the people into oblivion to benefit the state, and robin took their money back.

Robin was a conservative. 

Except if he was a conservative he would have just given all the money to the rich.

Everyone else would just have to hope a little trickled their way.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The evil prince john taxed the people into oblivion to benefit the state, himself, and robin took their money back. 

John and the sherrif were the socialists the thieves, Robin was a socialist. 

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The evil prince john taxed the people into oblivion to benefit the state, and robin took their money back. 

John and the sherrif were the socialists. Robin was a conservative. 

Robin redistributed the wealth in a manner he felt was more fair rather than keeping it to himself. That is socialism. The sheriff of Nottingham (prince John? Wtf you don't even know the story?) Was just a capitalist who cared more about money than the health of society.

Posted
22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Except if he was a conservative he would have just given all the money to the rich.

Everyone else would just have to hope a little trickled their way.

No...a conservative would keep it all for himself

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'd be open to talking about what this means in a separate thread...

Virtue signalling would be my guess.

In any case they're probably more charitable to one another than anyone else.

I'm a bit of sucker for abandoned pets myself.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Except if he was a conservative he would have just given all the money to the rich.

 

Nope. If you look at history and every government today in a socialist society the money is taken from the poor and given to the rich. Russia, china, Cuba, Venezuela, all the same thing

Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to keep their own money. Lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation

There's absolutely no doubt in the world that the sheriff and John were the socialists in that picture and robin was just trying to get them some tax relief

Posted
4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's absolutely no doubt in the world that the sheriff and John were the socialists in that picture and robin was just trying to get them some tax relief

Sure, just like Hitler was a lefty.

LMAO!

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, just like Hitler was a lefty.

LMAO!

LOL so you know you're wrong so you're going to try to change the channel :) 

YOU'RE obviously a leftie, nobody else lies and obfuscates as much as you guys do :) 

 Sorry history isn't to your liking  LOLOL

Posted
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

LOL so you know you're wrong so you're going to try to change the channel

It was certainly worth the effort to see you've changed your mind about Hitler.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. If you look at history and every government today in a socialist society the money is taken from the poor and given to the rich. Russia, china, Cuba, Venezuela, all the same thing

Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to keep their own money. Lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation

There's absolutely no doubt in the world that the sheriff and John were the socialists in that picture and robin was just trying to get them some tax relief

Can you explain where prince john came from in your brain? Was there some Robin hood reboot where the villain was prince john? In the real story it was implied that the royalty sided with Robin and the sheriff was a rogue agent. Indeed he was just keeping stuff for himself as you suggest conservatives do

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Sure, just like Hitler was a lefty.

LMAO!

Only  non political people care about left vs right. Those are constructs of media consumption. They have nothing to do with actual politics.

Posted
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Virtue signalling would be my guess.

In any case they're probably more charitable to one another than anyone else.

Cmon dude this is just hateful.

  • Haha 1

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,881
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    cody37
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Pollux earned a badge
      First Post
    • DrewZero earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • No USA benits earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 went up a rank
      Mentor
    • dekker99 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...