So I've read up on socialism and communism a tiny bit.....

[Julpost]

Please understand that I paid not one iota of attention to history when I was in school. Until I homeschooled, honesty, I couldn't have told you the difference between the Civil War and The Revolutionary War.

 

I don't know that I would ever admit that IRL, but hey, it's kinda nice being unknown in cyberland!! I can ask all the questions I wouldn't dare otherwise.

 

Ok, so here's the question: Why are these 2 forms of gov't considered so bad? It seems to me that from a Christian point of view, it would be more in line with what the early church did, to sell our property and share it with everyone, than to make and keep all of our own wealth. Didn't Jesus teach that the rich man should sell everything? Is capitalism a bit of me-me-me, storing up wealth on earth?? I know I must be missing key parts to this, that's why I'm asking. Is it that we should be doing this but from personal conviction, not gov't mandate?

[Quad Shot Academy]

The thing that pops into my head first is that in both of these types of governments there is no incentive for people to work hard. My husband works very long, hard hours and is on call 24x7. He gets calls in the middle of the night frequently and has to get out of bed to work. There are people in his company that have no desire to work that hard and so choose not to and typically their spouse works too so they don't "need" the extra money like we do. If my husband was not making significantly more money than them, he would have no incentive to work that hard either. With that type of government it is very hard to motivate scientists and engineers, which is why they are typically behind other countries.

[Closeacademy]

If people were perfect then both of these systems would work as a perfect government but people are petty, lazy, greedy, spiteful, and above all sinful so these forms of government will not work for us.

 

They are a wonderful utopian ideal but not practical with people as they really are. Democracy probably works the best for imperfect people to govern themselves despite their sinful natures.:001_smile:

[JFSinIL]

Yup - and aside from no motivation (profit!) in working hard - why work hard when even the less-hard-working get the same share in everything - there is the human urge to better one's self, one's family, one's kids. Look at tales from ye olde USSR - most folks were out to get what perks they could, and Party Officials had the best of the best (or so I glean from reading Solzhenitsyn. And thank-you, spell-check, as there is no way I could spell his name on my own!)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

"Didn't Jesus teach that the rich man should sell everything?"

 

Jesus told one particular rich man that *he* needed to sell everything, but he didn't tell everyone that.

He did say that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. But there could be a question as to whether that kingdom is the earthly body of disciples or heaven.

 

Anyway a completely socialist government is sharing under the point of a gun, and the people with the guns usually get their share first. True Christian Socialism would completely volunteer sharing, each person giving privately and as he is led. Christian Socialist governments have been tried and they didn't work, because many felt no incentive to work for what they would get anyway.

 

I'm not so sure that Capitalism should be labeled Christian though. It has its downsides too. But the biggest advantage to Capitalism is the incentive and the freedom to work for one's own benefit and advancement. Economics is all about incentive. People are attracted to where the incentives are greater, whether it is the black market, the free market, or the subsidized market.

[Susan in TN]

These forms of government assume a view of human nature that does not agree with the Bible. Christianity teaches that humans are born fallen and sinful and even the regenerated have an inclination toward sin and selfishness.

 

A communist system and to a slightly lesser degree, a socialist system only works if people are completely self-motivated to do their very best - for their families and their communities. To work hard and do well regardless of reward or punishment. Unfortunately, humans have a tendancy to do only what is minimally required of them, and if the govt. provides whatever they don't want to provide for themselves or their families (by earning enough or working hard enough), there isn't the motivation to do it yourself.

 

On the other side, a communist government also assumes that those in charge will always make decisions based on what is best for all the people. That doesn't happen either.

 

Related to this is the idea that a central government knows what is best - the best way to feed, educate, house, and occupy it's citizens; and the govt. knows how to "do it better" (they're the experts, aren't they?). Ha.

[Susan in TN]

Please understand that I paid not one iota of attention to history when I was in school. Until I homeschooled, honesty, I couldn't have told you the difference between the Civil War and The Revolutionary War.

 

 

Sorry, just want to add - same here. One of the Great Benefits of homeschooling! I'm actually learning what I should have learned 25 years ago!

[battlemaiden]

I just want to add that Plymouth Plantation tried the "share everything" Christian community and it was an absolute disaster for reasons already discussed---no motivation etc...

 

If the puritan pilgrims couldn't make it happen..... ;)

 

I also agree that communism does have tiers to its system- there are haves and have nots, no matter how it is sold. It always ends up badly.

 

Jo

[percytruffle]

Well, it's been a while since I've read it, but have you read "The Communist Manifesto"? I was surprised when I first read it how much I agreed with what they were saying, at first, but the farther I read into the document the more I realized how much I didn't agree with it.

 

Also, Communism's ultimate goal is to do away with government entirely in exchange for a Utopian society where man governs himself and shares freely with everyone else. Unfortunately, there never comes a time when government oversight is no longer needed, the system then breaks down, and the government becomes the ultimate enemy of the very people it proposed to free.

 

I suppose a truly Communist society is really out there, it's called Heaven. It won't happen until then because as others have said, we are not capable of such selflessness as a race. Human forms of Communism have usually centered around government taking the place of God in the existence of man. That, to me, resembles the antithesis of Heaven.

[chiguirre]

I'm going to define "socialist country" as a country where there is a socialist party that is currently in government or is the major opposition party. Some examples are:

 

United Kingdom

France

Spain

Germany

Italy

Belgium

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Finland

Israel

Brazil

Argentina

Mexico

 

I could go on and on and on, but I'll link to the Socialist International list of member parties instead:

 

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

 

You'll notice that the countries I listed are all democracies (some better than others, but they're all democracies). Socialism in these countries emphasizes a social safely net that takes care of the weakest members of society and provides the basic needs of all citizens (health and education). There is a general consensus in these countries (and their conservative parties also support this consensus) that the job of government is to make sure that everyone has the basic necessities of life covered. They may do a better or worse job actually providing these services, but they see it as the fundamental mission of government to provide them.

 

Communism in actual, factual reality has always been a totalitarian ideology. While socialism is completely compatible with democracy, communism isn't. My own closest experience of communism was through my Hungarian family. They viewed it as basically Russian colonialism. In their day to day life, they gamed the system as best they could, pushing the limits when that was possible, retrenching when it wasn't. It was a matter of how much you could work under the table, where you could buy black market stuff, what coded messages you could slip into music or books, etc. But, realistically, you had to absolutely avoid annoying the Russians enough that they invade your country (think Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980).

 

China is a different kettle of fish entirely. It had no history of democracy and pretty much went from absolute monarchy to turmoil to communism. Ditto Russia itself. They went from the tsars to WW1 to the October Revolution to Communism. IMHO, the Russian communists actually did manage to pull Russia kicking and screaming into the modern world. It went from still having legal serfdom to world power in about 100 years. That's a pretty impressive end even though it didn't justify the collectivist, repressive, gulag means.

 

I hope this helps or at least points you in the direction of ideas to explore.

[Storm Bay]

Interesting questions. I do have a bias, because my grandparents were persecuted by the Russian communists and fled for religious reasons (Mennonites.) Just so you know.

 

The reason I question that it's Christian, despite some of the good sounding points in the Manifesto (I read it about 25 years ago in Women's Studies, so I'm rusty on the finer points) is because as I recall it's grounded in the philosophy of materialism. Communist countries usually either outlaw Christianity or allow only one. In China, for example, it was illegal to import Bibles (it may still be, but I haven't checked on that.) In Russia, only the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed, although that's changed in at least some of the former Soviet countries, as it has in the formerly Muslim countries as religions are gaining strength in at least some of them.

 

The other thing I'd look at is how much prosperity have the majority of Communist countries had? China is finally enjoying more now, but they've opened the doors to allow some capitalism and so many things are now made there. Also, I've met enough refugees and immigrants who came during the Communist regime to know that things did not work as planned due to lack of incentive, corruption, etc.

 

On the other hand, pure capitalism with no controls doesn't work any better, IMO, which is why unions came along. Powerful unions can cause trouble, too. The sad fact is that we're just not perfect and that no system is, either, but I prefer to stick with ones where there is more freedom. Communism lacks that.

[percytruffle]

"Social safely net", now there's an open-ended term that makes me very nervous. The US is sliding more toward Socialism every day and most people don't even realize it. Where does the safety net end? When are we responsible enough to make our own informed decisions and live with the consequences, good or bad?

 

In 1987 my friend from England was visiting me here in the US and was aghast at the fact that we were allowed to install electrical outlets in our bathrooms in order to dry our hair. The code there said they couldn't, someone might electrocute themselves. That's funny, we just put those big tags on our appliances warning of the danger and assume we are intelligent enough to know better!

 

In 2007 my friend in Germany was here visiting and telling us about his fishing license he just obtained for an ungodly amount of money and a very lengthy training. Then, he can only fish in a certain pond where he has a paid membership. He was pretty interested in our fishing practices here! I don't know whether the government is protecting the fishermen, the fish, the general environment, or all the above, but he didn't know why.

 

Just some examples of random "safety nets". Certainly we have our own and they've been ramping up every year. Just this past week I read that Syrup of Ipecac (the stuff you give your kids if they swallow poison, and which has saved untold lives) is being removed from the shelves of stores and will soon not be available to buy. Why? Because the poison, if caustic, can burn the kid's throat a second time as it comes back up. No kidding. It said this on the bottle and on every emergency poisoning sheet I received in school, babysitter class, the red cross...But, now all of a sudden, we aren't smart enough to handle this ourselves. The "safety net" has to be put in place. Now, your only recourse is to call your poison control center number, and pray.

 

I don't know about you, but government "safety nets" scare the you-know-what out of me.

 

Sorry for the rant. Coming down off my soap box now.:blushing:

[chiguirre]

I don't know, Percy, a couple of your examples of overbearing government actually make sense to me. I wouldn't feel comfortable administering Ipecac until I had sought medical advice because it can make things worse. I also would not fool around with 220 wiring ever (okay, I wouldn't fool with 110 either) but I know that the 220 is more dangerous.

 

Just to show you there's no hard feelings, I'll add to your stash of stupid safety net rules. In Venezuela, it's illegal to dispense aspirin without a prescription even though you can sell antibiotics, hormonal treatments, etc. without one. Why this strange rule? Because if you have the misfortune of taking aspirin for a headache that turns out to be hemorraghic dengue (which is endemic in the whole country) your chances of survival plummet. It's a trade-off, saving lives on one hand, but restricting pain killer choices to acetominephin and ibuprofin on the other.

[Jenny in Atl]

Yet another silly EU Safety Rule. :lol:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3560315.stm

[Storm Bay]

Yet another silly EU Safety Rule. :lol:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3560315.stm

 

This reminds me of some of the crazy warnings that manufacturers now have to put on products to avoid lawsuits. Also of the Stella awards. One of these days auto manufacturers may have to put warnings on their vehicles, such as, Warning, death from automobile accidents possible...

 

Mountains high? Who'd have thunk!:D

[percytruffle]

I wouldn't "fool around" with wiring either, but I do have an outlet in my bathroom. That was the point. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Yes, many, many safety net issues seem like the right thing to do, but who decides where the line is? Who calls the shots? Sure, it's safer to wear a seat belt while driving, most of the time. There are incidents where it isn't but the majority of the evidence supports wearing them. I wear mine, always have, always will. But, why was it made into a law? Because the government doesn't trust us to make our own decisions. Sure, it seems like a very good thing. It usually is a very good thing. Where does it end? How many more new laws will be tacked on? Governmental control can grow like a weed.

 

We are freely and willingly giving up our freedom to choose for ourselves. Some are just fine with that, but some don't see where it could potentially head. That's what scares me.

 

I see this trend as contributing to the lack of responsibility people take for their own choices and actions. My friend in Germany sees this happening as well and is worried. If the government holds the safety net, can't we just free-fall into it? If we hit the ground instead of the net and are injured, it must be the government's fault, right?

 

Thanks for the examples. Certainly, there are no hard feelings! I know many don't share my views and I respect that. I love to hear what others have to say. I always learn something new and grow from our conversations.

[Vida Winter]

Ok, so here's the question: Why are these 2 forms of gov't considered so bad? It seems to me that from a Christian point of view, it would be more in line with what the early church did, to sell our property and share it with everyone, than to make and keep all of our own wealth. Didn't Jesus teach that the rich man should sell everything? Is capitalism a bit of me-me-me, storing up wealth on earth?? I know I must be missing key parts to this, that's why I'm asking. Is it that we should be doing this but from personal conviction, not gov't mandate?

 

The problem is that these systems do not work on a number of levels.

 

a) Those in charge have a tendency to become too powerful. They tend to want to protect that power at all costs. You may recall dictators in other countries. Also remember politicians in our own country.

 

b) When you are not directly paying for the services or goods you receive, it is not in your favor to shop around or economize. As an example in this country, a good number of emergency room patients are covered by medicaid and do not pay for services themselves. The reality is that many of these patients show up at the ER for non-emergencies simply because they will not have to pay for the visit themselves.

 

c) The larger the government becomes, the less efficient it becomes. We end up financing institutions for their own sake, even when their usefulness is outdated. Think big=inneficient, small=efficient. As a citizen and a homeschooler (with one child in PS) I think we would be better off without a federal department of education (or a hugely reduced one) in favor of local control of schools. Ditto for many other non-essential government functions. I'd be a lousy politician, let me tell you. "If elected, I will cut departments left and right."

 

d) As for Christian giving (or any other religion you can name), individuals are very generous in America and always have been. But I do not care to see the giving mandated. I feel as if every time our taxes are raised, we are being forced to give more, although first the money must be funnelled through layers of organizational bureaucracy to pay the salaries of all the government employees who administer the programs...resulting in very little of the tax reaching those who would benefit from it.

 

e) Small business is a key to our economy. When government over-regulates and over-taxes small business, (and it is more each year it seems) it is like driving a knife into the backs of small business owners. At a certain point they are going to say, "It's just not worth it to have employees." There go the jobs. I can personally attest to this having come from a family of small business owners and having owned one myself.

 

If you've gotten this far you may begin to get a point I am coming to: we are creeping toward socialism in this country, slowly but surely. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves.

[percytruffle]

It just makes you want to smack yourself upside the head! Remember the one where the package of nuts had to state "may include nuts". Yeah, enough said.

[Carol in Cal.]

Marx was the one who called religion "the opium of the masses". He taught that religion (Christianity) existed primarily to help poor, downtrodden people accept their lot rather than rising up against their oppressors. He taught that it was just an illusion.

 

He also taught that everyone should work and benefit from work--'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' No one should own property by himself. Capitalists who own a lot of land, factories, etc. at the time of the revolution should be divested, because by defination they are the enemies of the common people.

 

He also taught that a central government would coordinate all of this for the common good, at least in the early stages of migrating toward perfect communism, and that workers should own their means of production.

 

Oppression and religious persecution then follow.

 

1. If religion is the opiate of the masses, it should be outlawed or at least very tightly controlled by the state. In much of the Soviet bloc it was impossible to rise in a career if you were a Christian. It was illegal to be most types of Christian or Jew or Muslim. I grew up with children who fled Soviet Russia during the 70's because they were going to be killed for their faith. They prayed that God would close the mouths of the dogs at the border so that they could sneak over without being detected. Literally.

 

2. If you are not working, you are not contributing to society so you might be jailed. Thus mothers must work whether they have young children or not, especially in communist East Germany. And, since Christians in Russia were often faced with job discrimination, they went to jail a lot.

 

3. The teaching about the central government led to incredible abuses. The most commonly cited example of this is the taking of most of the grain from the Ukraine under Stalin, after which there was widespread starvation in one of the most fertile and productive areas of the Soviet bloc for quite a few years. I have read that more died because of that than during World War II. (Not sure whether that last is true, though.) Another horrendous example of this abuse is the killing fields of Cambodia. I can't even bring myself to write the details--they are beyond horrifying.

 

4. Functionally, the suspician at best and persecution at worst of the existing factory owners, landlords, and various officials let to a stupendous talent/experience drain as communist/socialist regimes were starting up. It cannot be denied that there were tremendous abuses by some of these people which contributed to the revolutions, but it is also true that to a large extent the new regimes were in over their heads and had most of their experience gotten from watching the previous tortuous regimes. This probably made the communist regimes more barbaric than they might have been. If you look at socialism in countries with more broadly based education and morals, such as Sweden or West Germany, it is a very benign institution. It involves more bureaucracy but also more of a humane safety net than our country. It has some serious inefficiencies, but it also creates a confidence and broad opportunity for a decent life that is inspiring. I have slowly come to believe that the torture and disfunction commonly associated with Soviet and Asian communism is as much from the prior state of those countries than from any other reason. (I know that this is likely to be controversial, and want to say that I have come to this belief very slowly and cautiously after having been a rapid anti when I was younger. I'm still anti, but I no longer think that totalitarianism is a necessary component that always follows from these philosophies.)

 

Good resources include some movies and books:

 

"Reds"--what an amazing film. All about those idealistic American communists and their tremendous disillusionment after the Russian revolution.

 

Doris Lessing's autobiographical works

 

Solzenitsyn's "Gulag Archepeligo" (spelling atrocious, sorry)

 

"God's Smuggler"--Wurmbrand?

 

"The Killing Fields"--if you can stand to watch this film, it is supposed to be very accurate in its depiction of the Cambodian horrors. I have never felt that I could watch it.

 

John Steinbeck's "In Dubious Battle"--tells the fictionalized story of how someone became a communist organizer because he was radicalized by the bad treatment of workers. It is important to remember that in the US, trade unions were associated with and attributed to communism almost exclusively. And it is important to remember that every single advance by organized labor in this country, no matter how just, was attributed to creeping communism and received with horror on that basis from many quarters. Interestingly enough, in general, in communist countries trade unions are outlawed on the stated assumption that there can be no need for a union in a truly communist country because 'the people' already own everything so there is nothing for which to negotiate. In Western socialist countries, however, trade unions and professional unions are the norm rather than the exception; and are much stronger than they are in the US.

 

It is also important to remember that one of the attractive things about Nazism in Germany was that the Nazis stood up to the communists, and also that they preached (though they did not practice) a universal brotherhood of Germans rather than class warfare--which actually made them (ironically enough) seem more democratic to many Germans than the communists did. Clearly the laws of unintended consequences were seriously in play in pre-WWII Germany.

[chiguirre]

2. If you are not working, you are not contributing to society so you might be jailed. Thus mothers must work whether they have young children or not, especially in communist East Germany. And, since Christians in Russia were often faced with job discrimination, they went to jail a lot.

 

 

This was not the case in Hungary. My cousin could take 3 years off with each child at reduced pay. Most mothers of young children took advantage of this benefit. Also, she was married in a Catholic church and neither she nor her husband faced any reprisals.

[Carol in Cal.]

This was not the case in Hungary. My cousin could take 3 years off with each child at reduced pay. Most mothers of young children took advantage of this benefit. Also, she was married in a Catholic church and neither she nor her husband faced any reprisals.

 

I think that forcing moms of young children to work was very prevalent in East Germany, though. I have seen it referred to in their own writings quite a bit. They did have cheap or free childcare, but it was mostly state- or employer- run if I understood this correctly. In Russia I don't think that mothers of young children were as commonly expected to work, though. But in Russia, it was easy to lose your job if you were a Christian man, and then to be jailed because you were deemed to be refusing to work. I don't know about China or communist Vietnam or Cambodia.

[Josie]

"Social safely net", now there's an open-ended term that makes me very nervous. <snipped message>

 

 

I don't know about you, but government "safety nets" scare the you-know-what out of me.

 

Sorry for the rant. Coming down off my soap box now.:blushing:

 

 

:iagree: Amen! Amen! It scares me, too.

[LizzyBee]

I wouldn't feel comfortable administering Ipecac until I had sought medical advice because it can make things worse.

 

But I think we as parents are smart enough to call Poison Control, tell them my child swallowed fill-in-the-blank, and ask whether to give the syrup or not. For people who live a long way from a hospital or doctor's office, having the syrup at home or not can be the difference between life and death.

[LizzyBee]

Communist countries usually either outlaw Christianity or allow only one. In China, for example, it was illegal to import Bibles (it may still be, but I haven't checked on that.) In Russia, only the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed, although that's changed in at least some of the former Soviet countries, as it has in the formerly Muslim countries as religions are gaining strength in at least some of them.

 

Even the Russian Orthodox Church was outlawed when Lenin took over Russia. Most churches were destroyed, and one in Moscow was turned into a museum to honor and promote atheism. Anyone caught with religious materials was either executed, tortured, or sent to a work camp. Years later, Stalin realized that because he had killed so many millions and demoralized those still living, both the military and manufacturing industry were weakening. At that point, he legalized government-sanctioned churches. However, their services and messages were strictly regulated.

 

As for China, I know that as of 10 years ago, it was still illegal to import Bibles.

[TXMomof4]

 

d) As for Christian giving (or any other religion you can name), individuals are very generous in America and always have been. But I do not care to see the giving mandated. I feel as if every time our taxes are raised, we are being forced to give more, although first the money must be funnelled through layers of organizational bureaucracy to pay the salaries of all the government employees who administer the programs...resulting in very little of the tax reaching those who would benefit from it.

 

 

If you've gotten this far you may begin to get a point I am coming to: we are creeping toward socialism in this country, slowly but surely. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves.

 

I hear ya! Isn't it funny how I will freely give at church designating it for a needy family, but the idea of my taxes being raised so some government official can then take the paperwork of needy families, while another person is determining how much of my money will actually go to help the needy family, while yet another person is determining the most cost effient manner to use MY money....all the while taking away from the amount intended for said needy family because we are having to pay for these three employees salary/medical care/ whatever. The church takes the money, gives it to the people who need it. End of story.

 

I know it isn't a perfect system, but I'm certain I get much more bang for my buck giving at church vs. taxes. Besides the things that I'm sure my taxes pay for would absolutely horrify me in a lot of situations.

 

I'm always amazed at how people don't want the government in their personal lives (i.e. the Patriot Act) but will freely allow the government to tell them what they can eat. It boggles my mind!

[Laura Corin]

I'm going to define "socialist country" as a country where there is a socialist party that is currently in government or is the major opposition party.

 

The UK is ruled by a socialist party, but the system is 'softened democratic capitalism'. China is ruled by a communist party, but only ever claimed, at its most left-wing moments, to have achieved socialism, not communism. I don't think the USSR ever claimed to have achieved communism either.

 

Laura

[Storm Bay]

Even the Russian Orthodox Church was outlawed when Lenin took over Russia. Most churches were destroyed, and one in Moscow was turned into a museum to honor and promote atheism. Anyone caught with religious materials was either executed, tortured, or sent to a work camp. Years later, Stalin realized that because he had killed so many millions and demoralized those still living, both the military and manufacturing industry were weakening. At that point, he legalized government-sanctioned churches. However, their services and messages were strictly regulated.

 

As for China, I know that as of 10 years ago, it was still illegal to import Bibles.

 

Okay. I heard about this from a Ukranian from the Russian speaking part of the Ukraine, so it must have been different there. I had heard the Russian part, so had thought there was nothing, too. I know that my grandparents were Mennonites (a liberal kind) and of those that didn't escape in the 1920s, all but one uncle was sent to Siberia in the 20s. One of my great uncles eluded capture for 20 years, but ended up there, too. They spoke fluent Russian, but German at home and at church even after over a century of living there.

 

My great grandfather owned mills which were burned by revolutionaries. Six months later, poor and hungry, the same workers who burned his mills came begging for him to rebuild his mills. My greatgrandfather, not the most gentle person in the world, refused, still angry over what they'd done. Nobody liked the Mennonites there, not the Reds, not the Whites, not the bandits.

[Josie]

But I think we as parents are smart enough to call Poison Control, tell them my child swallowed fill-in-the-blank, and ask whether to give the syrup or not. For people who live a long way from a hospital or doctor's office, having the syrup at home or not can be the difference between life and death.

 

 

:iagree: We really are smart enough to THINK before we do things.

 

The government has made some people "rely" on others to think for them. If this continues, we will have a big mess on our hands because people won't remember how to think for themselves.

[Nestof3]

a social safely net that takes care of the weakest members of society

 

Hmmm. Weakest according to whom?

 

This statement just raises so many questions in my head.

[Alenee]

The problem is that these systems do not work on a number of levels.

 

a) Those in charge have a tendency to become too powerful. They tend to want to protect that power at all costs. You may recall dictators in other countries. Also remember politicians in our own country.

 

b) When you are not directly paying for the services or goods you receive, it is not in your favor to shop around or economize. As an example in this country, a good number of emergency room patients are covered by medicaid and do not pay for services themselves. The reality is that many of these patients show up at the ER for non-emergencies simply because they will not have to pay for the visit themselves.

 

c) The larger the government becomes, the less efficient it becomes. We end up financing institutions for their own sake, even when their usefulness is outdated. Think big=inneficient, small=efficient. As a citizen and a homeschooler (with one child in PS) I think we would be better off without a federal department of education (or a hugely reduced one) in favor of local control of schools. Ditto for many other non-essential government functions. I'd be a lousy politician, let me tell you. "If elected, I will cut departments left and right."

 

d) As for Christian giving (or any other religion you can name), individuals are very generous in America and always have been. But I do not care to see the giving mandated. I feel as if every time our taxes are raised, we are being forced to give more, although first the money must be funnelled through layers of organizational bureaucracy to pay the salaries of all the government employees who administer the programs...resulting in very little of the tax reaching those who would benefit from it.

 

e) Small business is a key to our economy. When government over-regulates and over-taxes small business, (and it is more each year it seems) it is like driving a knife into the backs of small business owners. At a certain point they are going to say, "It's just not worth it to have employees." There go the jobs. I can personally attest to this having come from a family of small business owners and having owned one myself.

 

If you've gotten this far you may begin to get a point I am coming to: we are creeping toward socialism in this country, slowly but surely. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves.

 

My sister says she's not a socialist but I disagree. Everything you wrote about is everything I've said to her, yet she supports what it seems you and I both, do not. I'm seriously considering sending your post (others as well) to her. Maybe hearing it from others would awaken her....then again, when you're completely snowed, I don't suppose any amount of "convincing" actually does convince.

[Colleen]

My sister says she's not a socialist but I disagree. Everything you wrote about is everything I've said to her, yet she supports what it seems you and I both, do not. I'm seriously considering sending your post (others as well) to her. Maybe hearing it from others would awaken her....then again, when you're completely snowed, I don't suppose any amount of "convincing" actually does convince.

 

Ask yourself this: Would you take kindly to your sister sending you a myriad of messages, written by strangers, in an effort to convert you to her brand of thinking?

 

(think, think, think)

 

Exactly.:)

[Colleen]

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, Julianna; thanks for bringing up social democracy.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

If Marx had added one word he would have been right. *STATE* religion is the opium of the masses. Anytime Christianity is appropriated by the state it becomes meaningless in terms of incentives to improve one's own life and the lives of others. It then exists as a means of indoctrination and propaganda.

[LizzyBee]

Okay. I heard about this from a Ukranian from the Russian speaking part of the Ukraine, so it must have been different there. I had heard the Russian part, so had thought there was nothing, too. I know that my grandparents were Mennonites (a liberal kind) and of those that didn't escape in the 1920s, all but one uncle was sent to Siberia in the 20s. One of my great uncles eluded capture for 20 years, but ended up there, too. They spoke fluent Russian, but German at home and at church even after over a century of living there.

 

My great grandfather owned mills which were burned by revolutionaries. Six months later, poor and hungry, the same workers who burned his mills came begging for him to rebuild his mills. My greatgrandfather, not the most gentle person in the world, refused, still angry over what they'd done. Nobody liked the Mennonites there, not the Reds, not the Whites, not the bandits.

 

I can't even imagine what it was like to live through the revolution and then Lenin and Stalin's reign. I don't have any ancestors from Russia or Eastern Europe, so what I know is only from reading. I think reading about it gives us only a glimpse of how awful it was.

[dirty ethel rackham]

With Syrup of Ipecac - it is not about removing the substance giving no other alternatives. Instead, they recommend having activated charcoal because it is safer and, from what I read, more effective. In most ER's, they don't use Ipecac anymore, but activated charcoal. There have been many instances of people giving Ipecac unwisely and children suffering permanent damage. Even very intelligent people make dreadful mistakes when under stress and in a panicked state. Not everyone reads up on things. I know dh would not have a clue what to do in a poisoning situation. Things I think are common knowledge about health issues, he hasn't a clue because he doesn't read about that stuff. Things he thinks are common knowledge about operating a car or a lawnmower would not be in my "common sense" bank because they are outside my realm of experience (or interest:))

 

While I am not in favor of a nanny state, I appreciate government action when we find a better way.

[Greta]

Interesting conversation about the quirky rules that can develop in a more socialist-leaning country. But what about all the advantages of the kind of socialism that is common in Europe right now? I'd gladly give up having my hair dryer in my bathroom in exchange for health care!!!!! :thumbup:

[Alenee]

 

Ask yourself this: Would you take kindly to your sister sending you a myriad of messages, written by strangers, in an effort to convert you to her brand of thinking?

 

(think, think, think)

 

Exactly.:)

 

She DOES this to me!!! I've done my best to listen to her point of view and have even changed some of my thinking, however, the same respect has not been returned. She's working on the Obama campaign so EVERY conversation is about that. I do my level best to suck it up and listen but occasionally, I want to lash out and scream, "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND??? Did we actually grow up in the same house?"

[Alenee]

Interesting conversation about the quirky rules that can develop in a more socialist-leaning country. But what about all the advantages of the kind of socialism that is common in Europe right now? I'd gladly give up having my hair dryer in my bathroom in exchange for health care!!!!! :thumbup:

 

You would? Even it if meant they could attach your wages so you HAD to buy their brand? This isn't Obama's brand, however I firmly believe that it will have to be this way after a while if he's elected and passes this because part of the problem is not that people can't afford it, but they choose not to afford it. We will still have the same problems with people going to the ER, not having insurance, so us who buy our insurance get higher rates to cover the loss.

 

My sister believes this universal healthcare is a great thing, much needed, gives people choices. So I asked her, what happens when those people w/o healthcare decide they still don't want to buy it, they still go to the ER, and we as taxpayers still have to foot that bill, as well as the bill for this new brand of healthcare? She believes there's such a minute amount of people who would do that so it would be a wash. This goes right back to what several posters were saying. The people who are pushing the socialism believe there are actually good people in the world. That's just not reality. When you give up *some* freedom for *some* safety net, is that really freedom? I just don't think so.

[LizzyBee]

Instead, they recommend having activated charcoal because it is safer and, from what I read, more effective.

 

Thanks for the info!

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm an odd bird, I believe both that most folks are good, but that there are many who are not. Given this, I'm personally uncomfortable with the ever increasing reliance on big government to take care of us (feed, house, clothe, create our jobs, keep us safe from ourselves, etc). We may trust, to a certain extent, the current form of governance in the US (most in the conversation I think are talking about the US) but there is no guarantee that those "in control" will remain benevolent. If we give up so much of our personal freedoms for these perks", how will we defend ourselves from our own government if, at some future date, it turns on us? I guess, I trust people more as individuals than those who hide behind a large group/company/governing body.

[LizzyBee]

Interesting conversation about the quirky rules that can develop in a more socialist-leaning country. But what about all the advantages of the kind of socialism that is common in Europe right now? I'd gladly give up having my hair dryer in my bathroom in exchange for health care!!!!! :thumbup:

 

Having been a military dependent in the past, the last thing I want is the government running the health care system. Even with all its problems, our private health care system is awesome. Oh, and in Europe? A friend of mine was living in Ireland and needed some very common tests done. It was going to take at least 6 months to get an appointment. When she asked her doctor what she should do, he told her to fly to the States and have the tests done here because it would not be safe to wait 6 months.

[percytruffle]

The same article I learned about the Ipecac info from also stated that the medical community does not think activated charcoal is as effective as once thought and many still use Ipecac in the emergency room setting.

 

Not my opinion, just info from the news article that I thought I'd pass along. I'd link it, but it was local and isn't available still.

[percytruffle]

Yeah, healthcare reform, especially when controlled by the government, isn't always what you hope it will be. Just ask my dh's relatives in Canada. They can tell you some horror stories.

[Greta]

You would? Even it if meant they could attach your wages so you HAD to buy their brand?

 

Yup, sure would. Having to buy their brand, if I understand what you mean by that, is no different than the fully privatized employer-subsidized ridiculously over-priced and virtually worthless health insurance that I have right now. I have acquaintances in Canada and Australia, and they all have more choices and flexibility with their national health care plans than I have with my private one. And here's the big deal to me. My hubby, who has a PhD and has worked hard as a professional for decades, will have JACK SQUAT when he retires. If we lived in virtually any other industrialized nation, we would have health care for life, including when we will need it most, in our elderly years. Here, when we will need it most is exactly when we won't have it.

 

The people who are pushing the socialism believe there are actually good people in the world. That's just not reality.

Wow. Yes, I absolutely, fervently, passionately, and unapologetically believe there are actually good people in the world.

 

When you give up *some* freedom for *some* safety net, is that really freedom? I just don't think so.

I have noticed that both conservatives and liberals are willing to give up *some* freedoms for safety -- it's just that they choose different freedoms to sacrifice. Liberals are willing to give up certain financial freedoms, while conservatives are willing to give up personal freedoms.

 

But I think your impression that national health care plans give people less freedom than America's current system is based on a misconception. The people I have talked to who have socialized medicine have a tremendous degree of freedom and choice in their health care. More, it seems to me, than the majority of Americans, whose options are very limited.

[Laurie]

*Socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

*Communism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and gives you some of the milk.

*Fascism: You have 2 cows. The government tells you when to milk them, takes the milk, then sells it back to you.

*Nazism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both cows and shoots you.

*New Deal-ism: You have 2 cows. The government buys both, shoots one, milks the other, and throws away the milk.

*Free-market capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

 

In response to your specific question, I don't think creating wealth is evil/unChristian. Someone with wealth actually has something besides good intentions to share.

[percytruffle]

New Deal-ism: my ds and I are lol right now over this one!!! He just studied this time period and we mapped out all FDR's federal programs. :lol:

 

This is not meant as a negative post toward FDR, by the way, or any of the New Deal ideologies. We just think the wording is so amusing, the whole "throw away the milk" thing!

[Greta]

Just ask my dh's relatives in Canada. They can tell you some horror stories.

 

I'm sure you're aware that there are some pretty horrific stories about health care in the US. I've heard many more good stories about other country's health care systems than bad ones. It isn't fair (for EITHER side! I'm not pointing fingers at you!) to pick out a handful of stories as an example, and if I was guilty of that then I apologize.

 

What's much more convincing to me than any anecdotal story is things like this:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/graphs.html

 

(be sure to click on life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. on the top of the graph.)

 

With all the ingenuity and innovation that America is capable of, I think we can do far far better than what we're doing right now.

[percytruffle]

With all the ingenuity and innovation that America is capable of, I think we can do far far better than what we're doing right now.

 

I agree. Our health care system has failed our population in many ways. I'm still not convinced that government sponsored health care would be any better, just different. So far, our federal government has not shown me that they can responsibly take control of anything and do a better job at it than the private sector does.

 

Yes, you would think we were capable of better!

[Alenee]

 

With all the ingenuity and innovation that America is capable of, I think we can do far far better than what we're doing right now.

 

Yes, we can, but that's because we as individuals have choices. You take away our individual right to those choices and sure, you may like your healthcare, but do you also like your freedom to homeschool, drive a car, buy the food you choose, etc, etc, etc.? Our freedoms will be chipped away as we depend more and more on government to provide what we should provide for ourselves. There's a reason our constitution is written the way it is. You may not like your choices, but choices you have. There is no utopia...life is not fair. But a life we have, and we have the choice to live it as we see fit.

[Guest Lorna]

I though I might share my experiences here. I have very mixed views on whether the National Health Service in the UK is better or not. On the one hand I think it is a truly wonderful thing to have been brought up to consider health care a right and not a luxury. I must confess to being shocked when I read on this board of someone wondering whether they should take their sick child to the emergency room because they cannot afford it. No one should ever be in this situation in a civilised society.

On the other hand however, the health car system 'the NHS' in Britain is a shocking disgrace. It puts people on huge long waiting lists in the hope that they will filter themselves out by getting better, but, I believe putting people though terrible fear and worry in the months of waiting.

 

For example, I needed blood tests and a scan a year ago. The doctor sent me across town to a place to get them done. I needed to wait with about a hundred other people and take a ticket from a machine. There were only a few chairs and the elderly and sick needed to sit on the floor or stand. It took several hours to be served. There were three receptionists (doing very little) but only one man in a tiny room doing all the tests (very hassled). The scan couldn't be done for months and so I couldn't have it done in time for us moving abroad.

 

In France, where I do know they spend more, I had to have repeat blood tests and a scan (finally!). I paid a moderate amount (which would be reimbursed) but had my blood tests and scan done within the day and the results were ready the next day. I walked straight into the blood test, waited only ten minutes for the doctors. The attitude of the doctor was entirely different too. He shook my hand and treated me as a equal. I paid him money in his consulting room and he gave me change!

 

I would say doctors in the UK get depressed and can be very off-hand. They have a hectic job, and they do not need to be pleasant to their patients to get any work. They are in short supply and patients, realistically have no choices. Commonly patients need to wait in waiting rooms for lengthy periods - in emergency rooms they can be there for over twelve hours. Patients are unpleasant by the time they see the doctor and the doctor gets this unpleasantness over and over, day in day out.

 

Another example was my dd. She broke her ankle. We went to a local hospital. We waited five hours for them to see her. When we saw the doctor they said that they had no x-ray facilities for under twelves. We then had to take a taxi across town and waited another four hours. There were no seats and the receptionist said we needed to walk across some waste ground to get to the x-ray department (full of glass etc). After finally persuading them we needed a wheel chair, we made it to the x-ray department to discover that it was a break. There them followed a huge lecture on keeping her feet up and not walking on it :001_huh:. We were then told that she needed to go to yet another place and have it put in plaster, but that it was closed until the morning. Again there was no appointment system and so we had to wait five hours there. It took two minutes to finally put her foot in a cast. :glare:

 

I am so glad we are rarely ill but I am so sad when my elderly relatives go through this awful degrading experience in the UK. I wish they were all in France.

 

I suppose you need to choose. There are two extremes, but I like the French system. It costs a lot, it is wonderful to have something like that when you are at you most vulnerable. It is called dignity.