Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Responding to PT

In response to Brian, various posts posted by paper_turtle:

Just because something is labeled "socialized" and/or just because someone calling himself a socialist first thought of the idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea OR that if we accept this ONE idea we will slide into full-blown socialism.

Agreed, but if something IS socialistic (not labeled or thought of by a socialist - but actually IS socialistic), then I would consider that a bad thing. At least for a nation-state.

As far as the slide, once you nationalize/socialize one industry, you're on a slippery slope. It would be just about impossible to STOP at the socialization of medicine. You would HAVE to follow with socializing other, related industries. Next target: the insurance industry.

As I pointed out in another thread a while ago, early Christian communities were communistic--assets were shared on common.

Let's be careful with our terms. You're applying a Marxist era term to a 1st century congregation of Christian believers. The early church would NOT have been Marxist. But...

Consider what they did. They were "in one accord" in their commitment to Jesus Christ and the spread of His Word - and they were doing so in a fairly hostile environment (one that would get MORE hostile as the years went on - until Constantine in the 4th century). They covenanted together in one of the most tangible ways that they could - by holding all their property in common. They were NOT forming a nation-state or a country. They were building a church and were spreading the Gospel of Jesus.

Here in the US the Amana colony was a Christian communistic community, and highly successful for quite a long time.

I don't doubt that communism/socialism can have some limited success at a SMALL-SCALE level. But it's NOT workable at a nation-state level, not without turning the government into a powerful totalitarian regime that tramples on the human rights of its people. See North Korea. See China (though they are opening up more - by transitioning to a free market economy). See Cuba. See Venezuela.

We already do this through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other services. We also force those of us who do not believe in war to support the military.

I'm not questioning the government's right to tax. My point on obligating the people is -- Where do we stop?

The more things you put in the "guaranteed rights" or "entitlement" category, the MORE taxes you have to raise and the more POWER you have to have over your people to carry out those obligations. You canNOT - or at least should NOT - ignore this.

What's more, there is a LIMIT as to how much you can tax the people before it hurts productivity and interferes with the ability of families to provide for and support themselves. It isn't just a moral/political issue, but a practical one.

As for defense, I admire your commitment to peace, PT. But it's naive to think that a modern nation can survive without a strong national defense. Basic political philosophy (see John Locke for example) as well as common sense DICTATE that a nation needs a military to defend itself and its security interests. So, yes, people who live in that country should be obligated to support the PROTECTION of the country they live in.