Or:
Does Anyone Have a Handbasket?...
This, of course, is not scientifically valid and I'm not saying it means anything at all, but just for fun, I tried a little experiment. I did a google search on various words along with a year, then compared it to other years. For instance, I googled "socialism 2001" and then "socialism 2009..." and I looked at the number of links returned. I don't even know that, by placing a year on a search you would mostly get hits from that year, this is just an ambiguous experiment.
My results:
"socialism 2001" 3,400,000
"socialism 2007" 4,610,000
"socialism 2008" 6,620,000
"socialism 2009" 7,210,000
"hate 2001" 28,400,000
"hate 2007" 78,700,000
"hate 2008" 112,000,000
"hate 2009" 126,000,000
"godless 2001" 361,000
"godless 2007" 795,000
"godless 2008" 1,140,000
"godless 2009" 1,080,000
"destroy US 2001" 1,140,000
"destroy US 2007" 10,500,000
"destroy US 2008" 12,200,000
"destroy US 2009" 12,300,000
Keeping in mind in all of these, that 2009 is less than three months old. Anyone want to bet that by the end of the year, "destroy US 2009" will turn up something like 50,000,000?
Significant or not? Worrisome or not?
Or, put another way, are there a lot of nuts out there or not?
91 comments:
You've just depressed the hell out of me on a Friday.
Shame on you, you godless, hateful socialist out to destroy the US!
oops.
What's crazier is that many of your adversaries, actual people, actual - though latent - minds, think all four items are synonyms.
The really scary thing is that some of these paranoid nutcases, like Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) or Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Mark Sanford (R-SC) are actually elected officials in these "United" States.
Your science experiment may have a large standard deviation, but it definitely suggests a trend....
I dunno. The President firing CEOs, seeking additional power to take over companies, buying controlling shares in major banks, supporting bills of attainder. If this ain't the freeway to serfdom, I don't know what is.
Still, I do like the advice that Glenn Reynolds offered after the election. Don't worry too much about the results, because the guy that you supported will turn out not to be as good as you hoped, and the guy that you opposed will turn out to not be as bad as you feared.
Anyway, the Internet doubles in size every few months, so you'd need a more reliable testing instrument. Like a longitudinal poll.
Okay, perhaps I'm putting too much into this non-experiment. It appears that no matter what word I type in with 2001 and 2009, it gets significantly more hits.
It's just that I am seeing the words "nazi," "socialist," "destroy america" etc, etc, etc, flying around like they're cheap bubble gum.
This proves nothing. The increasingly rabid language of the nut fringe is its own proof.
I'm feeling better already.
The increasingly rabid language of the nut fringe is its own proof.
Dan, remember this?
Friday, January 21, 2005
A time for anger...
For W and his spawn
Shame on your god
Your arm-breaker
Your life-taker
Your freemarket witch
Your sonofabitch
god
Damn your god!
Who preaches war
That corporate whore
That distorts scripture
So the rich can get richer
On the backs of the poor
Taking more and more and more...
Shame on your god
Your upside down
Vulgar, hideous clown
Your backwards, inside-out
Bloodthirsty boyscout
god
And shame on you
We had a perfectly good God
Prince of Peace
Making a feast
For ALL God's children
Black, white, straight, gay
Preparing the Way
Good God! We had a Good God
And you killed him
You religious,
You white washed tombs,
You serpents,
You blind guides,
You gnat-straining, camel-swallowing, hellspawn-making
Blind Fools
Shame on you
And shame on your god.
I'm not sure you're in the most credible position to call for civil and temperate political disagreements.
I believed and still believe that Bush was engaging in an illegal and horrifically immoral war. That being the case, I think that poem accurately reflects a solid opposition to that sort of gross immorality and injustice.
On the other hand, we have Obama taking actions that all fall under the umbrella of capitalism and a free republic and for this, he is being called a nazi, a murderer, a socialist and other rabid-sounding idiocies.
The difference is, I believe, that I can make a very strong case that the Iraq Invasion was immoral whilst Obama's critics are mindless in their opposition. "Let's call him a socialist! Even though his policies are clearly within the realm of capitalism... Let's call him a Nazi! Even though clearly he is not a Nazi."
Rabid is as rabid does.
Dan, Obama is not being called a murderer for his economic policies; he's being called a murderer for his funding activities that result in the destruction of innocent human life -- both research on embryos at home, and abortion abroad. You should be able to disagree with that position without distorting it.
Obama's economic policies -- e.g., buying up companies and firing company executives -- are a clear break away from the free market and toward statism. If Obama did support a truly free market, you would denounce him for a worshipping a "freemarket witch."
The ONLY way you can argue that Obama is a capitalist and not a socialist is by using an absurdly broad definition of the former and an absurdly narrow definition of the latter: you make everything hinge on the concept of the private ownership of property, EVEN if that ownership is in-name-only. If a tyranny dictated every single aspect of how you could use your property but still paid lip-service to the idea that the property is yours, your definition of "capitalism" would still apply to that system.
A more sensible definition of "capitalism" would include both the private ownership of property AND ITS PRIVATE CONTROL. By that definition, Obama is pushing us away from capitalism as quickly as our political apparatus allows.
And finally, about fascism, the 1920 Nazi party platform, which Hitler proclaimed and never altered, included the abolition of "unearned" incomes from rent and interest; the confiscation of profits that were considered immoral (i.e., war profits); the nationalization of industries, education, and health care; profit-sharing in industries; and a huge expansion of old-age wefare.
It was American Progressives, and NOT classical liberals, who found common ground in those exciting experiments in both Moscow and Rome. Progressives then and now have the same complaints against the free market that Italian and German fascists had, and they advocate the same general solutions.
It is nonsense to say that we, Obama's critics, are mindless. We have our arguments, and we present them. An honest, thoughtful, and decent individual would tackle those arguments rather than pretend they don't exist.
Then again, an honorable man probably wouldn't try to justify even a poetic accusation that his political opponents are bloodthirsty Christ-killers.
An honest, thoughtful, and decent individual would tackle those arguments rather than pretend they don't exist.
I HAVE tackled them. Some on the extreme Right froth at the mouth and call Obama a nazi and a socialist.
I point out that, by definition, Obama is neither. End of discussion.
Now, if some on the lunatic fringe want to try to reframe what "Nazism" or "socialism" are, then they're free to do so. For my part, though, I have decided to stick to the language as commonly accepted.
I just won't waste much time debating the English language with those who wish to rewrite the dictionary. They are, in my mind and by their own behavior, approaching a fruity/nutty range and I've found that there's not much point in discussing politics with nuts.
By definition, Obama is not a socialist nor a nazi. End of conversation. There just isn't much more to say.
IF, on the other hand, one wishes to raise concerns about this policy or that, saying, "I'm concerned about any president suggesting an individual person should resign from their post. I think..." THAT, to me, is fine and reasonable. I may even agree with them in part.
But there is a marked difference between that conversation and calling Obama a Nazi.
The reason they get away with calling Obama "socialist" is because they now think FDR and all Keynesian capitalists are also socialists. By the new definition Richard Nixon would be a socialist (he said "We're all basically Keynesians, now.") for controlling wages in the '70s as he tried to reign in stagflation. Eisenhower would be a socialist for taxing the upper 1% at 90%. Teddy Roosevelt would be a socialist for breaking up monopolies. Reagan would be a socialist for firing air traffic controllers.
It's a ridiculous decision to call everything other than free market fundamentalism "socialism." At least, that's the label when Democrats do it. When Bush gave us step one in nationalizing the finance industry, many Republicans opposed him (others did not), but no one called him a socialist.
When Republican Sen. Bob Corker of TN tried to force the cancellation of UAW contracts as a price for public help for the automakers (when the UAW agreed if the management had to take pay cuts, too, Corker walked out of the room), no one called Corker a socialist or talked about the sanctity of contracts. Now, of course, Corker is horrified at the firing of Rick Waggoner, because white collar and management contracts are sacred, but to hell with blue collar union workers.
BTW, Dan. Speaking of crazy. I've just been nuts enough to write on abortion and why I am no longer pro-life on my blog. I wait calmly for the death threats.
Dan, if you are really so concerned with being precise, you shouldn't raise the spectre of deicide:
We had a perfectly good God
Prince of Peace
Making a feast
For ALL God's children
Black, white, straight, gay
Preparing the Way
Good God! We had a Good God
And you killed him
We're not Christ-killers. Even accounting for the figurative language of a poem, it's hateful and inaccurate for you to write otherwise, but that doesn't stop you.
Again, it seems to me that your definition of socialism is absurdly narrow, focusing on the private ownership of property without any real consideration for its private control.
Would you consider fascism to be a socialist political philosophy? If you don't, are you saying that it's own leaders didn't understand the movement or were being dishonest about the movement?
I ask, because Mussolini always claimed to be a socialist, as did the Nazi party, where Nazi is a German abbreviation of "national socialist."
If it's so objectionable to call Obama a fascist, please explain precisely what fascist economic policies that Obama would probably object to, in principle. If you can't draw bright lines between fascist economics and Obama's economics, maybe it's not such a horrifically inaccurate thing to compare the two.
We're not Christ-killers.
Bubba, I don't really want to do the dance where you tell me (incorrectly) what I've said and I repeatedly correct your misunderstandings only to have you reinterpret the corrections incorrectly.
Suffice to say that you misunderstand me and, it appears, you misunderstand some basic words such as fascist, nazi and socialist. Rather than repeatedly correct you, I'd suggest you consult a dictionary.
Here, I'll help...
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Obama, by definition, is not a fascist, nazi or socialist and it's ridiculous in the extreme for people to even make that sort of suggestion. As Geoffrey points out, there's not much point in even talking about it with folk who are serious about such idiocies because it is absurd and to talk with folk who believe in Obamaboogeymen, ogres or unicorns is only to encourage the delusions of the disturbed.
If someone has an honest concern, they should discuss it in honest terms and people will come closer to having an honest discussion with them. Otherwise, they are placing themselves in the dunghill of marginalized conspiracy theorists and nuts throughout history.
As to my poem, I will remind you of what some call the imprecatory (or cursing) Psalms - poems where the writer seems to revel in debasing the enemy who has been an oppressor...
May his days be few; may another take his office.
May his children be fatherless, his wife, a widow.
May his children be vagrant beggars, driven from their hovels.
May the usurer snare all he owns, strangers plunder all he earns.
May no one treat him kindly or pity his fatherless children.
~Psalm 109
Not pleasant. Nor especially Christian. But this is not to say that God endorses this sort of hoped-for violence.
Rather, these are there (at least according to some biblical readers) to show that it is okay to speak our frustration to God. That God understands our longing for justice and that God is listening to the prayers of the oppressed.
My poem is more in that vein. I am not calling any one person a Christ-killer. I am praying in that poem, complaining to God about all those who would use God's name to justify killing the innocent, up to and including those who, in fact, killed God's own son. A pox upon those type of people! Shame on them!
I'm sorry if you did not understand the point of my poem.
I do wonder, Bubba, how consistent you're trying to be in your position.
That is, is it the case that you think those who call Obama a Nazi and my poem are all equally okay, if we think that the title and poem fit? And then your only problem is that you think I'm being inconsistent because I complain about those who would call Obama a Nazi, but think it okay to write that kind of poem?
OR, is it the case that you think those who call Obama a Nazi are okay, but I'm wrong to express a strongly negative opinion about Bush's policies in my poem? If so, do you understand that this seems a bit inconsistent?
Dan, you compare your poem to some of the more difficult psalms:
My poem is more in that vein. I am not calling any one person a Christ-killer. I am praying in that poem, complaining to God about all those who would use God's name to justify killing the innocent, up to and including those who, in fact, killed God's own son. A pox upon those type of people! Shame on them!
This is not remotely credible BECAUSE THE POEM DID NOT ADDRESS GOD, EVEN ONCE. Not one "you" in that poem was pointed toward the heavens; instead every instance of direct address was pointed toward your political opponents.
(Notice that the passages you cite all use the third-person "he", something that is entirely absent in your poem.)
And you did make this poem quite personal in its apparent subtitle:
For W and his spawn
Besides being deeply offensive, the poem is banal, but if it's really the case that you intended that poem to be addressed to God, you're not just a bad writer. You're an utterly incompetent one.
I don't think that's the case. To the credit of your basic communication skills, if not your character, I don't believe your excuse for that poem, because it doesn't fit its content. I wish you would take more responsibility for what you wrote.
More in a moment...
Dan, how do you define the term "socialist"?
John, I don't define socialism, necessarily. But Merriam Webster does...
Socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
I accept MW's definition. Obama's policies are not socialist, by definition.
Bubba, you are free to think Obama is a socialist, fascist nazi if you want. I'm telling you that folk who think thusly are being ignored as ignorant.
I'd suggest if you are actually concerned, that you make your arguments without using those terms, as they don't apply and they only serve to marginalize those who use them as not adult or rational. You may disagree, I'm just telling you the truth as I see it.
If you have a problem with, for instance, Obama suggesting that a particular CEO should step down, that you make your arguments about that topic. If you choose to say, instead, "Obama MADE that CEO quit, therefore he is a fascist!! snarl, slather..." You WILL be ignored. At least by me and most rational-thinking folk I know.
Again, you mostly either misunderstand or misrepresent my position and I'm not dancing that dance with you any more, Bubba. Suffice to note, where you say:
But anything more than that from YOUR side is par for the course, such as your calling us mindless, insane, bloodthirsty Christ-killers.
I have not called the groups known as conservatives or Republicans anything of the sort. I've noted that those who choose to use wildly inappropriate or plain incorrect terms such as Nazi, Fascist or Socialist to describe Democrats in general or Obama in particular, they are acting in an irrational, nutty sort of way. And, as I've noted, my poem was about those who attempt to use God to justify their evil bloodshed. Not republicans or conservatives in general.
AND, I will go further and say that if, beyond that poem, I tended to use such harsh language on a daily basis to describe Bush or Republicans, I would ALSO be marginalized as nutty.
In fact, though, I don't tend to demonize those who disagree with me with terms like Nazi or fascist. You can look at my pages and see this to be true.
I have noted here and elsewhere that Bush probably thought he was doing the right thing and that he was just wrong. I would guess that during the campaign I specifically praised McCain here on these pages as much as I did Obama, or close to it. I have used harsh language to denounce some of the nuttier members of your tribe - the ones who, for instance, call Obama a Nazi or a Fascist when clearly he is not.
Suppose someone started talking to you and said, "You know, don't you, that Sarah Palin is a werewolf. At night, she rips people's throats out and eats their hearts!"
Would you bother to defend Palin from such a ridiculous charge or, is the more appropriate thing to ignore the rantings of such a nut?
I'm thinking the most appropriate thing is to ignore them. And I shall endeavor to do so.
Dan, I think the definition for socialism above is fine for a first approximation -- though, again, true ownership entails control -- but I don't think anyone honestly believes that Obama's stated policy objectives implement FULL-BLOWN socialism all at once.
What his policies do is take significant steps in that direction -- arguably, pushing us as far toward socialism as political realities allow -- and reveal no principle that would stop us from going further.
Barring a literal coup, any truly socialist politician in this country wouldn't be able to implement full socialism all at once. The process would be incremental.
I don't think it's paranoia to point out that Obama's policies and actions do fit with what a true socialist would do, given the constraints of American politics.
Instead, I think the position that you seem to be taking is dangerous in its denial of the direction that current policies are taking us.
It seems to me that you would deny that any statist, collectivist system is socialist -- no matter how closely regulated people's lives are -- so long as lip service is paid to the private ownership of property. It seems to me that you would dismiss as socialistic any incremental transformation of our economy, except for (maybe) the last step where the transformation is complete.
If a government already has industrialized several sectors of the economy, and a politician puts forth a bill to privatize one sector, I think it's accurate to describe the bill as libertarian IN ITS DIRECTION if not its destination (by itself).
If the man elucidates no principles that suggest that he's stopping at this one industry, I think it's not imprudent to guess that his goal is ultimately a free-market economy, and that his reaching that goal will be limited only by political reality.
The same thinking applies to incremental steps in the other direction.
Simply put, noting the direction that Obama's policies are taking us is not nutty and certainly not comparable to calling Sarah Palin a werewolf.
To you, perhaps. Not to me. Not given the vitriol and nonsense spouted by some. They are maybe one step removed from calling Obama a werewolf and believing that with the True Faith that they also believe he is a socialist.
Now, as to the more reasonable points you make, yes, Obama is certainly swinging things Leftward. It is, in my mind and the minds of many, a correction from the Too Far Right swing that we've had in the Reagan/Bush/Bush and, to a lesser degree, Clinton years.
If I and many of us thought he were going too far Left, we would raise alarms and stand opposed to, for instance, land grabs or telling people how to do business beyond reasonable environmental and worker's rights limits. We've swung WAY too far to the right inasmuch as simple environmental regulation has been replaced by having the foxes guard the henhouse. This is a correction. Naught else, not an indicator that the US is "turning" socialist and certainly not fascist.
Dan,
One can only assume that you are equally critical of those on your side who characterize conservatives using the terms you deride.
I can also only assume that you don't listen to much left wing talk radio.
Again, Dan, your complaints about "vitriol and nonsense" coming from the right is galling in light of, for instance, your poem "For W. and his spawn" in which you wrote about how Bush and his supporters murdered God.
That's only one example: using the imagery of lynching to smear Jeremiah Wright's critics is another.
This example goes beyond fairy tales straight into blood libel, and it's not the only time where your writing has been simply vicious.
At any rate, the lack of strong criticism for Obama's current actions -- as John put it, "The President firing CEOs, seeking additional power to take over companies, buying controlling shares in major banks, supporting bills of attainder" -- isn't reassuring. I'm not sure how these actions fall under your rubric of environmental protection and workers' rights.
If it is the case that there is a point where Obama could go to far and you "raise alarms" and oppose him, GFY: good for you.
But that's hardly an indication that Obama's OWN personal philosophy would cause him to stop this so-called "correction" before it goes too far in the other direction. That's hardly an indication that his stopping point, if it exists, approximates yours.
Instead, there's nothing in his history or actual record that indicates that there is a stopping point for him. In lieu of that, it's not imprudent to suspect that he will drive this country to the left as far as political reality allows, as quickly as it allows.
We've already seen that he's using a financial crisis rooted in credit issues (particularly mortgages) to push through sweeping changes to the unrelated sectors of energy, health care, and education -- and to do so without the full benefit of the debate that his platform should have.
His chief of staff, his secretary of state, and Obama himself have all admitted that they want to use this crisis to accomplish things they couldn't otherwise do politically.
And his agenda includes adding more debt to this country than all 43 predecessors combined -- doubling the national debt in around six years, and tripling it within the decade -- and spending 28.5 per cent of GDP, which is unprecedented except during World War II.
If this is nothing more than a correction, I would hate to see what sort of five-year plan you would actually criticize as radical.
I reckon if I heard someone saying that Bush was a Nazi and a fascist, I would tend to try to ignore them as I am trying to ignore those who do the same for Obama.
That is, if a liberal said...
This [Bush policy] is straight out of Hitler's Germany.
or
This effort by the [Bush]'s is demonic.
Or called Bush a Nazi, fascist or socialist, I would say that they are wrong. And no, I don't tend to listen to talk radio - Left or Right. Do you have an example?
I'm sure there are those out there who demonize Bush in a way similar to what some on the Right are doing now with Obama. They would both be wrong.
Criticize the policy intelligently, if you disagree with it. Don't call it "Nazi." It only makes you look foolish.
Dan, given that definition of socialism, then Obama is not a socialist. However, I would prefer a different definition that did not equate it with the absolutism of communism. When I think of Obama as a socialist, I am referring to a definition that involves substantial, but not total government control of the means of production. As we might find in Western Europe, for example.
The notion that Obama is a nazi is absurd and denigrating to those who suffered under real nazis.
I agree with you about the nazi name-calling, John, but on the socialism issue, I'm not sure what to say. That IS the definition of socialism. It is not a "narrow" definition, but the full and complete definition of socialism. Obama's policies meet the definition of a regulated capitalism, not a socialist society.
Now, I guess one could make the argument that the more one regulates, the less control/freedom the individual has and that is certainly true. We can deregulate arms rules so that anyone could own any weapon of their choice up to and including nuclear weaponry. Not many of us would appreciate that degree of freedom.
On the other hand, we could heavily regulate arms to the degree that no one could own a butter knife. That, too, would be a ridiculous and unwelcome extreme.
But I don't know what else to call someone who wants to have ownership and control of the means of production to stay within the hands of private individuals (even if we try to reasonably regulate some areas) but a capitalist. This is what Obama is.
We can disagree about where regulations get too much or are too lax without calling one another fascists and socialists.
Dan,
My suggestion would be to take a listen to any random half hour of the Stephanie Miller show for an example of uncivil discourse on the left. However anything on the Air America "network" will suffice.
I'm glad to hear you say that you would tend to ignore "extremists" on both ideological sides.
I'd love to see some actual criticism or analysis of P-BO's policies by you or some of the other bloggers who were such vehement supporters during the election. Surprisingly I've not seen much from y'all about the wonders of the new administration.
Maybe you could do an analysis of P-BO's determination that he is qualified to determine who should run GM and that GM should file bankruptcy.
Dan,
A quick google check of the term socialism would certainly seem to demonstrate that the socialist philosophy is indeed much more broad than your definition would seem to imply. Just some food for thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
Dictionary.com (en excerpt that certainly could apply to the P-BO plan)
So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.]
"A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism
"System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.
Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal."
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/communism2.html
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2009/02/bring-on-european-socialism-the-us-is-ready-for-it.html
"I'm ready for some European style socialism. So are a majority of Americans, given the results of the past few elections. We're tried of unfettered individualism and irresponsible capitalism.
Bring it on, President Obama."
Dan wrote:
I agree with you about the nazi name-calling, John, but on the socialism issue, I'm not sure what to say. That IS the definition of socialism. It is not a "narrow" definition, but the full and complete definition of socialism.
Only if one accepts that a certain authority, such as a dictionary publisher, can determine the finite meaning of a word within a language. I think of langauge as a bit more fuzzy, with variations between cultures, groups, individuals, and usages. And given that languages change over time, it would seem necessary to envision language as at least partially fluid.
But if you're expressing frustration at the tendency of some people to deliberately slander others by misusing words far beyond their commonly-accepted definitions, I feel your pain.
But I don't know what else to call someone who wants to have ownership and control of the means of production to stay within the hands of private individuals (even if we try to reasonably regulate some areas) but a capitalist. This is what Obama is.
If one defines capitalism as one who wants to have private ownership of the means of production, then Obama is not a capitalist, or else he would not have fired the GM CEO or bailed out and acquired controlling power in various corporations. This violates an absolutist definition of capitalism.
The problem is attaching absolutist meanings to words, such as that one must believe in total state control of property to be a socialist, or total private control of property to be a capitalist. Obama isn't a socialist under the definition that you provided, nor is he a capitalist under the definition that you provided. He's somewhere in between.
But back on topic, if you don't like the term socialist, then how about this assessment: Obama is planning a government expansion into the private sector on par with FDR's New Deal expansion.
Would you say that this is a fair description of Obama's plans?
John said:
I think of langauge as a bit more fuzzy, with variations between cultures, groups, individuals, and usages.
This is undoubtedly true and it's part of what I'm getting at. For some out there, Obama IS a socialist. However, by their big net definition of socialism, so are Roosevelt, Eisenhower and GW Bush.
The problem is that if everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist, then the word loses its meaning.
John said:
If one defines capitalism as one who wants to have private ownership of the means of production, then Obama is not a capitalist, or else he would not have fired the GM CEO or bailed out and acquired controlling power in various corporations. This violates an absolutist definition of capitalism.
I would disagree.
1. Obama did not fire anyone. He asked someone to resign and they did. It was not within Obama's authority to fire anyone.
2. When you accept gov't funds, they generally come with strings attached. Buyer beware. (This is one of the reasons I'm wary about faith-based orgs taking money from the gov't).
3. I don't know that bailing out companies in times of economic disaster - and I was generally opposed to all of those - disqualifies one from being a capitalist. As far as I know, Obama and Congress are all saying this is a one time emergency step to alleviate a specific (supposed) disaster. They are not disavowing private ownership nor private control.
I don't think Obama's actions - however well- or ill-advised they may have been thus far, mean that he is not a capitalist. And if it does, then it means that Reagan, Nixon, Bush and others have been non-capitalists, too.
See here.
And again, we're back to the issue of throwing a net so large that everyone - including Saint Ronnie - is a socialist.
John said:
if you don't like the term socialist, then how about this assessment: Obama is planning a government expansion into the private sector on par with FDR's New Deal expansion.
1. It's not that I "don't like" the word socialist, it's that I don't think it appropriate - and especially when it's being used in the context of Soviet style oppressive fascist socialism. It's just not the correct word.
2. I don't think Obama is "planning an expansion" of gov't. I think he's responding to the mess that the Bush administration has left behind. This will require, in Obama's mind, some investment in our economy that might be compared to Roosevelt's New Deal. And I'm fine with that, in general. But that was not socialism, either.
3. Again, I don't think Obama is "planning an expansion" of gov't. In fact, he seems to have in place a plan to return gov't to a more reasonable size - as has happened with Clinton and, to a lesser degree, Carter AND opposite of what happened under Reagan/Bush/Bush, who IN FACT, grew gov't to a MUCH larger size than any Democrat ever has hoped to.
Craig said:
A quick google check of the term socialism would certainly seem to demonstrate that the socialist philosophy is indeed much more broad than your definition would seem to imply.
Again, it's not "my definition," it's THE common definition at MW, at dictionary.com and in my economy classes in school. Yes, if you look far enough, there are more vague definitions of socialism, including the one you quoted (which was down the page a good bit on your source):
"A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor."
BUT, as I've noted with John, the problem with casting such a large net is that EVERYONE becomes a socialist. Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. So, are we going to call a HUGE portion of Christianity "socialists," too? And Reagan? And Bush/Bush? And FDR? Who ISN'T a socialist if you want to include everyone?
Yes, of course you are right. THE definition at dictionary.com (to be fair one of a number of "definitions) is the only possible definition. Once again, you mistake criticism of P-BO with support for others. No one here is arguing that other presidents have not done things that could be called socialist. What is actually being argued is that the CURRENT president is leading us down a path that a reasonable person could conclude is socialist. So, by all means continue with your semantics lesson, how about you spend some time on policies and explaining how government acquiring ownership of private business is en example of capitalism. So I will grant the point that simply calling P-BO a socialist is probably not 100% correct, as well as possibly simplistic. The problem is that it is also correct to call many of the policies he is pursuing socialist. So stop quibbling about trying to narrow the definition, and deal with what he is doing.
Dan wrote:
1. Obama did not fire anyone. He asked someone to resign and they did. It was not within Obama's authority to fire anyone.
While bailing out that company and giving orders on how it is to conduct itself. To suggest that Wagoner was not forced to resign is absurd. It was not within Obama's authority to fire anyone, but a powerful person can accomplish a lot of coercion without giving direct orders or making direct threats. And that's not capitalism under the absolutist definition that you provided.
2. When you accept gov't funds, they generally come with strings attached. Buyer beware. (This is one of the reasons I'm wary about faith-based orgs taking money from the gov't).
Sure, that's a fair demand. But it's not capitalism. Offering the government money in the first place was not capitalism.
3. I don't know that bailing out companies in times of economic disaster - and I was generally opposed to all of those - disqualifies one from being a capitalist. As far as I know, Obama and Congress are all saying this is a one time emergency step to alleviate a specific (supposed) disaster. They are not disavowing private ownership nor private control.
Government always promises that its programs and expansion of powers are always temporary -- only as long as some "crisis" continues. And then it relinquish that power, like the legendary Cincinnatus. Even if this were true, it still wouldn't be capitalism under the absolutist definition that you provided.
I don't think Obama's actions - however well- or ill-advised they may have been thus far, mean that he is not a capitalist. And if it does, then it means that Reagan, Nixon, Bush and others have been non-capitalists, too.
I can go along with that. And I hope that we can lay to rest the canard that Bush's laissez-faire economics caused this crisis, when Bush was anything but a laissez-faire capitalist.
Dan wrote:
1. It's not that I "don't like" the word socialist, it's that I don't think it appropriate - and especially when it's being used in the context of Soviet style oppressive fascist socialism. It's just not the correct word.
I agree. Where it is suggested that Obama is moving America to "socialism" in the Soviet expression, as Glenn Beck did recently, it's just not the correct word. Perhaps those of us who see see Obama as a more Western European expression of socialism should clarify our language. And those who see Obama as a Soviet expression of socialism should read a bit more history before continuing to make fools of themselves in public.
2. I don't think Obama is "planning an expansion" of gov't. I think he's responding to the mess that the Bush administration has left behind. This will require, in Obama's mind, some investment in our economy that might be compared to Roosevelt's New Deal. And I'm fine with that, in general. But that was not socialism, either.
Well, that's where I disagree. I think that the last thing that our country needs is another New Deal. I would much prefer that the federal government stop all this bailout nonsense and let the economy heal itself.
3. Again, I don't think Obama is "planning an expansion" of gov't. In fact, he seems to have in place a plan to return gov't to a more reasonable size - as has happened with Clinton and, to a lesser degree, Carter AND opposite of what happened under Reagan/Bush/Bush, who IN FACT, grew gov't to a MUCH larger size than any Democrat ever has hoped to.
Please explain.
Dan wrote:
BUT, as I've noted with John, the problem with casting such a large net is that EVERYONE becomes a socialist. Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. So, are we going to call a HUGE portion of Christianity "socialists," too? And Reagan? And Bush/Bush? And FDR? Who ISN'T a socialist if you want to include everyone?
These terms are usually nebulous and therefore relative. Just about everyone I know is a socialist -- compared to me. But I'm a socialist and a statist to others.
I vividly recall a couple of debates on my blog with someone who thought that an unborn child is a human life, but it is not the role of the state to protect that life. Now I'm a libertarian, but I'm not that libertarian.
We could take your absolutist definitions of socialism (a definition that I would prefer to attach to communism) and capitalism, and pretty much everyone in the American political roundtable would fit somewhere in between. Or we could use these terms relatively as in anyone to my left is a socialist and everyone to my right is an extremist. Or we could try to balance these two by finding commonly used definitions for terms. That could be problematic, as clearly you and I are attaching very different meanings to terms like "socialist".
I have no real solution. Just some thoughts.
Dan, if you do have a chance, I would appreciate your explaining how Obama's vision of government is apparently simultaneously smaller and larger than the status quo. You write that Obama plans to bring gov't to a "reasonable" size compared to the Republican government that reached "a MUCH larger size than any Democrat ever has hoped to," but then you write that Obama's plans require investments that are comparable to the New Deal. I do not understand how the statements can be reconciled.
And -- more importantly to me -- I would like you to explain how your current claim that Obama's a capitalist fits with your earlier blog entries that denounced capitalism as oppressive and totalitarian, and that dismissed capitalists as untrustworthy analysts of the current financial crisis.
While I'm waiting, there is one other comment that I think needs to be addressed.
Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
SAYS WHO, DAN?
I would agree that Christians ought to be concerned about making society more just, but you go further and make justice dependent on an equal distribution of property.
This is not an obvious position, and I think reasonable, faithful Christians can AND DO define justice differently -- as entailing equality under the law, including equality of property rights, knowing that equal opportunity almost certainly precludes equal outcomes.
Your definition of what is just is clearly leftist, but I don't see what's clearly Christian about it.
Where does the Bible teach that justice entails an equal (or near-equal) distribution of property? If the Bible doesn't teach this, on what basis would you argue that Christianity necessarily entails this belief?
This issue probably deserves a separate explanation in another blog thread, but either way, I would like to see you try to justify this very contentious claim that Christian doctrine entails leftist economics.
If one wants to know what a "socialist" is then the best place to find out is their website.
I lean heavily toward democratic socialism. So Bubba, I hope you're right about Obama. But so far, I'm not convinced. But I'm watching.
Many on the right have made much ado about a statement attributed to Obama that came from an article in the Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." This is proof, they say, that Obama is a socialist.
But snopes.com has debunked it as a another false claim.
Sorry, I've been on a short vacation the last few days. Thanks for the comments, all.
Quickly, I will address a question or two.
if you do have a chance, I would appreciate your explaining how Obama's vision of government is apparently simultaneously smaller and larger than the status quo.
1. Obama IS having to invest money in trying to stabilize the economy and in doing some necessary work that has been left untended for too long. These, like the New Deal, are at least partially one time investments. When the economy has stabilized, most of those investments can go away.
2. We do need to use common money to maintain the commonwealth. If we're going to have roads and water systems and wastewater systems, etc, then we also have to maintain them and to vital environmental issues. Ignoring them (see Reagan/Bush/Bush) is not an option in a fiscally responsible society.
3. There ARE areas of vast waste and bloated gov't that we can trim back. Our super-sized military for instance. Our subsidization of corporations and motorists, for instance. I suspect that we can save more on those areas than we need to invest in the needed areas.
4. Clinton (as much as I disliked him) put to lie the notion that Dems were fiscally irresponsible and Republicans were small gov't. Gov't GREW drastically under ReaganBushBush and shrank under Clinton. I have no reason, historically speaking and from what I have seen from Obama thus far that he would do things differently than Clinton in this regards.
See
Here
or
Here
For these reasons, I see no reason to believe that Obama can't/won't simultaneously invest temporarily (and make wiser investments longterm) while simultaneously shrinking gov't. History gives me every reason to believe that will be the case. In short: Dems SHRINK deficits, Republicans GROW gov't. Facts is facts.
I would like you to explain how your current claim that Obama's a capitalist fits with your earlier blog entries that denounced capitalism as oppressive and totalitarian, and that dismissed capitalists as untrustworthy analysts of the current financial crisis.
Um, because I'm not an absolutist?
Is it okay if I note the problems of socialism without condemning everything about socialism? Is it okay if I condemn the problems of capitalism without condemning everything about capitalism?
If so, that is the option I'd like to take, thank you.
Socialism - in some of its more extreme examples - tends to lead to oppression and have horrible results. Capitalism - in some of its more extreme examples - also can lead to oppression and have horrible results. I would like to avoid both sets of negative results, as much as possible.
Is it your position that an economic philosophy built upon self-interest (ie, self interest of flawed, selfish, sinful humanity, in the terms of most evangelicals) will always lead to positive results? I find such a position to be foolish and counter intuitive.
Dan,
You statement that Dems shrink government and reps grow government (given the context of the discussion I can only assume you mean dem presidents and rep presidents) misses one critical point. Presidents don't have the power to spend money. The key point is that what happened during the Clinton administration didn't happen until after the reps took over congress in '94. In the same fashion, the spending increases during the Regan administration came from congress not Regan. So what happens during the P-BO administration will have more to do with congress than him. Personally I fail to see how amassing a larger deficit (with trillion dollar deficits for the next several years)than the 8 years of GWB can be spun as shrinking government. So while P-BO might want (that remains to be seen, but it's possible) for these "investments" to be temporary, it's not up to him. You have a lot of faith that those who got us into this situation (congress) will all of a sudden do a 180 and get us out. Finally, please explain how you believe "investment money" spent in 2010 and 2011 will help get us out of a recession now. Please explain how you believe that the ongoing costs incurred by these "investments" will be covered without increasing government.
BTW, well played Dan. You have subtly shifted the focus away from the topic (is P-BO pursuing policies that could accurately be termed socialist), to focusing on the past. Your faith is touching.
Craig, the topic was the supposed paranoia of some on the internets, thank you very much. If, on my blog, I allow a conversation about Rightwing paranoia to go beyond just that point and include topics of word usage (which is related) and history, then on MY blog, I think that is okay.
Is that okay with you if I do so on MY blog?
Thank you.
As to focusing on the past: If the topic has devolved to whether or not Obama (a Dem president) can be counted on to shrink Gov't, then looking at the history of Dem and Republican presidencies seems entirely appropriate.
Those who fail to learn from the past (ie, keep electing GOP presidents - especially a particular type of GOP candidate, ie neocon trickle downers - who consistently grow gov't when it's the Dems who have decreased gov't, in hopes of shrinking gov't...) are doomed to repeat the past.
Dan,
Of course you can change the subject at any time on YOUR blog. If you think pointing out the obvious, that some on the internet are paranoid, is news cool. You are also, of course, welcome to limit discussion by defining how you allow words to be used. You can also ignore the basic structure of our federal government. But that does not change the problem with your contention. The president has a very limited power to grow or shrink government. If in fact P-BO was to learn from the past, he (and you) might be surprised to learn that this kind of spending has never led to growth. But enough of this, let's get specific.
My questions to you are these.
1. How would you define the success/failure of P-BO's policies?
2. What is an appropriate time frame to determine success or failure?
3. If the current direction fails to achieve what you define as success will you continue to support P-BO?
4. How will deferring "stimulus spending" for up to 2 years help our immediate problems?
5. How will accumulation a larger deficit (both real and projected) help achieve your desire to shrink government?
6. Other than the military, can you name any government departments/functions you would shrink or eliminate?
7. Do you think that government will grow or shrink if P-BO continues to endorse, and congress continues to pass bills which they haven't read?
Dan, I appreciate your answering (two of my three) questions, but I don't find the answers to be coherent or historically accurate.
First, Craig is right that Congress cannot be excluded from the equation when considering when the government engaged in deficit spending. In the 1980's, Reagan agreed to what was then the largest tax increase in history in order to reduce the deficit, trusting the DEMOCRATIC Congress's assurances to reduce spending simultaneously. Those spending cuts never materialized, and that's not Reagan's fault or the GOP's fault.
Clinton, on the other hand, attempted to socialize one-seventh of the US economy when he was working with a Congress controlled by a (small) Democratic majority. It is only when faced with a Republican Congress after the '94 elections -- a GOP coalition that was willing to shut down the government over the issue of spending, a move that redounded to Clinton's benefit -- that Clinton presided over budget supluses. You're giving the man credit for something that largely occurred DESPITE him, not because of him.
And, finally, about infrastructure spending in particular, I will reiterate that, under George W. Bush, "Spending on highways and mass transit went up by 22 percent."
As I said before, it seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too: you want to gripe about the deficits that Bush accumulated while giving him no credit for the programs that benefited from his spending sprees.
About what Obama may or may not do, I'm not surprised you see military spending -- one of the few areas where Congress has a constitutionally expressed responsibility -- as an area of wasteful spending ready to be cut, but you also look at "Our subsidization of... motorists" while still arguing A) that Bush neglected road maintenance and B) Obama's will AND SHOULD reverse that.
Your view seems incoherent at multiple scales, arguing that Obama's government will both grow and shrink, in part because he'll both increase and cut spending for roads.
And, about Obama and deficit-spending, you say you see no reason that Obama won't shrink government:
In short: Dems SHRINK deficits, Republicans GROW gov't. Facts is facts.
Again, this formulation requires a willful act of denying the role Congress plays in creating budgets, but this "fact" that Dems shrink deficits is belied BY OBAMA'S OWN PROJECTIONS.
I don't think Obama's all that trustworthy, and some of his ways of defining cuts -- e.g., assuming a full-scale occupation of Iraq for all time as a baseline -- is dishonest, but, even though he has every reason politically to project budget surpluses, and even though his projections are wildly optimistic, HIS OFFICE STILL PROJECTS HUGE DEFICITS FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE.
And by "huge," I mean, deficits that are multiple times larger than Bush's, amidst spending of 28.5 percent of GDP, a percentage matched ONLY by the height of WWII.
You're holding onto delusions that are so fantastical, even the guy who claimed his nomination will lead to receding oceans won't advance them when it comes to his own numbers. He'll call his budgets responsible, but even Obama doesn't project shrinking deficits.
About your calling Obama a capitalist while denouncing capitalism, Dan, you ask:
Is it okay if I note the problems of socialism without condemning everything about socialism? Is it okay if I condemn the problems of capitalism without condemning everything about capitalism?
If so, that is the option I'd like to take, thank you.
If that's the option you'd like to take, start taking it. Those blog entries I cited earlier didn't seem like careful criticisms of aspects of capitalism. They were outright denunciations.
But I have a question in return.
Socialism - in some of its more extreme examples - tends to lead to oppression and have horrible results. Capitalism - in some of its more extreme examples - also can lead to oppression and have horrible results. I would like to avoid both sets of negative results, as much as possible.
What in the world do you mean by "extreme" socialism and "extreme" capitalism?
According to the dictionary definitions that you think settle the issue, socialism is NOTHING MORE than a denial of the private ownership of property, and capitalism is NOTHING MORE than an affirmation of the private ownership of property.
Is it possible to deny or affirm private ownership only moderately? I don't think so: it seems pretty binary. Either you do or you don't deny private ownership.
If you could, please explain what you mean by "extreme" socialism or capitalism, because the term doesn't seem sensible given your strict definitions.
Who, What, or Where is the paranoia racing?
Just for grins, a couple of links that are at least tangentially related to the course of this thread.
http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/9/1091_Statism
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/opinion/31holstein.html?_r=2
Sorry for the delay. Busy weekend.
Earlier, I said:
Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
To which Bubba replied:
SAYS WHO, DAN?
To which I respond:
Moses, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul, the Prophets, ancient Israel, the early church, Jesus and God, for starters.
Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious. But not much, I believe.
We all know that Israel was commanded by God to be concerned about distribution of property and wealth. The Jubilee laws told us, for instance,
"In the year of this jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession..."
Under Jubilee rules, debts were routinely canceled, property regularly returned to original owners. Under Sabbath rules, goods/food was set aside for the poor, marginalized and foreigner, by law.
We know that in the manna years, that those who "gathered much did not get too much and those who gathered little had enough..."
We know the prophets routinely condemned unequal distribution of wealth and power.
We know that Jesus taught equitable living and freely sharing and that the wealthy should divest themselves of their wealth so as not to be entrapped by it. We know that Jesus talked of feasts where all were invited, specifically those who lacked material resources.
We know that sharing all in common so that none had too much and none had too little was a central reality in early church. As Paul says in the book of 2 corinthians:
For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality — at this present time your abundance being a supply for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may be EQUALITY; as it is written, “HE WHO gathered MUCH DID NOT HAVE TOO MUCH, AND HE WHO gathered LITTLE HAD NO LACK.”
So, yes, I think it an entirely reasonable assumption that Christians ought to be concerned about equitable sharing of resources. Do you disagree?
Now, if you want to quibble about the language I used (echoing Craig's, I believe) of "just and equitable distribution of property and labor," that's fine.
Perhaps I should have just said that we ought to be concerned about justice and equity or that I should have just left it to the vague "equitable distribution of resources" instead of the more specific "property and labor," I'm okay with discussing the differences. But I think any Christian that is concerned about biblical teaching about economics would find it not an unreasonable conclusion.
Do you disagree that biblical teaching tells us we ought to be concerned about equitable distribution of resources?
Craig, I reviewed your link about statism and I wholly agree that this ought to be a concern. I'm just thinking that it ought to have been a MUCH larger concern back when Bush was invading countries unprovoked and spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing tens of thousands of innocent people. Yes, yes, yes! By all means, DO NOT RELY UPON questionable state actions.
I also wish that more of us would be even more concerned about what I consider to be an even greater threat than statism - materialism. Just as we ought not rely too heavily or trust too easily in State answers, we also not to rely too heavily or trust at all in Market answers.
After all, it is imperfect human beings that both run gov't and markets and therefore, they are both prone to corruption, yes?
Bubba asked:
What in the world do you mean by "extreme" socialism and "extreme" capitalism?
I think we all recognize that both socialism and capitalism can be viewed as being along a continuum, yes? With the State rigidly making all decisions for every one on every issue in an extreme (and slightly perverted) version of socialism on one extreme and the Market rigidly making all decisions on every issue ("is it more affordable to dispose of our toxic waste responsibly or just throw it in the stream? Well, that's easy, let's throw it in the stream!") on the other extreme.
I'm opposed to wholly unregulated economic system as such systems tend towards oppression and violence to people and the planet. I'm also opposed to a State that makes all our decisions for us.
I would suspect we all agree. That's what I mean and that's what I think Bove was getting at with this quote: "There have been three totalitarian forces in our lifetime: the totalitarianism of Fascism, of Communism, and now of Capitalism."
I'm opposed to all totalitarianism, whether it's from fascism, communism or capitalism. You?
My questions to you (still) are these.
1. How would you define the success/failure of P-BO's policies?
2. What is an appropriate time frame to determine success or failure?
3. If the current direction fails to achieve what you define as success will you continue to support P-BO?
4. How will deferring "stimulus spending" for up to 2 years help our immediate problems?
5. How will accumulation a larger deficit (both real and projected) help achieve your desire to shrink government?
6. Other than the military, can you name any government departments/functions you would shrink or eliminate?
7. Do you think that government will grow or shrink if P-BO continues to endorse, and congress continues to pass bills which they haven't read?
I'm making comments as I have time, I appreciate your patience. As to Craig's last list o' questions:
1. If our economy recovers responsibly, I'll have considered his efforts a success. If we start living societally a bit more responsibly/sustainably, I'll consider his efforts a success. If our unemployment rate goes down, that would be a good sign. If we become less dependent upon foreign fossil fuels and even local fossil fuels, that would be a HUGE sign. Don't have time for more specific right at this point.
How about you?
2. We've gotten into this mess over a century, so I'm not expecting miracles, but if we can slow down the hyperconsumption and militarism and move to a more responsibly consumptive/less militaristic model in eight years, that would be a good sign.
It remains to be seen. Mostly, I'd like to see the amount of harm to at least slow down. Again, I'm not expecting miracles.
3. No. Within reason, no.
...6. That's rather like saying "Other than MOST of the budget, are there other areas where you'd like to see cut?" We spent ~$1 trillion on military-related expenditures last year and something like $30 billion on TANF (welfare), less than $1 billion for Arts (I believe), $24 billion in the Dept of Energy, $20 billion in the Dept of Agriculture... You get the idea. We spend a lion's share of discretionary spending in military-related expenses and on the interest that comes along with that.
You understand that, right?
Having said that, I'd cut back or eliminate NASA, I'm fine with cutting back on arts spending (although we've already done that for the last eight years, I believe, so we wouldn't really need to do that much now); I'd greatly favor doing an Al Gore-like efficiency trim in all gov't agencies. Further, I'd suggest that the Feds and States end the nutty war on drugs and that would free up untold billions of dollars, I suspect. I'd cut back greatly on road expenditures and redirect that motorist welfare towards mass transit and biking/walking efforts - which cost significantly less than road expenditures...
for starters. Out of time.
Having said that, I'd cut back or eliminate NASA, I'm fine with cutting back on arts spending (although we've already done that for the last eight years, I believe, so we wouldn't really need to do that much now); I'd greatly favor doing an Al Gore-like efficiency trim in all gov't agencies. Further, I'd suggest that the Feds and States end the nutty war on drugs and that would free up untold billions of dollars, I suspect. I'd cut back greatly on road expenditures and redirect that motorist welfare towards mass transit and biking/walking efforts - which cost significantly less than road expenditures...
I agree with all of that. Except for the redistributing part, of course.
We could get all of these things cut and more if we passed the Enumerated Powers Act. That, or just amuse ourselves watching Congresspeople trying to adapt to it.
What redistributing part?
Dan, I appreciate your answers.
You address at length your claim that Christians should work for "a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor," but what you claim isn't always obviously true, and what passages you specifically cite aren't always obviously apt.
We all know that Israel was commanded by God to be concerned about distribution of property and wealth.
No, we don't all know this, and this is the sort of thing that should proven rather than assumed. The Jubillee laws, for instance, were concerned ONLY with forgiving debts. There wasn't a progressive system whereby the really rich paid back multiple times the debt to the really poor; so long as debts were forgiven, a very wide gap between rich and poor wasn't condemned by the Law.
And the Sabbath rules didn't award parcels of land to those who had none as a matter of so-called justice: they just ensured that the poor and the foreigner had access to the leftovers of what the land produced, as a matter of mercy.
We know the prophets routinely condemned unequal distribution of wealth and power.
I know no such thing, and if their condemnation is so routine, you should be able to point to a good dozen instances, but you don't even point to one.
We know that Jesus taught equitable living and freely sharing and that the wealthy should divest themselves of their wealth so as not to be entrapped by it.
Even assuming that Christ taught all these things, it's clear that what He taught were commands for His disciples, not a political program for society at large. You yourself admit that the wealthy should "divest themselves" of their wealth; government tax-collectors don't come into play.
We know that Jesus talked of feasts where all were invited, specifically those who lacked material resources.
And this is proof of nothing -- except perhaps your own grasping of straws -- since the feast was a parable for God's kingdom. If you're going to invoke a parable and wrench it out of context to support wealth redistribution, I could just as easily invoke the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. The parable began with an unequal distribution of resources, and it didn't end with that gap closing. On the contrary, "to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
We know that sharing all in common so that none had too much and none had too little was a central reality in early church.
Even so, it was never preached as a reality that should be imposed on all society by the government.
Do you disagree that biblical teaching tells us we ought to be concerned about equitable distribution of resources?
Yes, I do disagree. The Bible clearly teaches that we should meet the needs of the poor out of charity, but nowhere does it teach that we can and should try to create a society where categories like "rich" and "poor" do not apply.
More in a moment.
This part:
I'd cut back greatly on road expenditures and redirect that motorist welfare towards mass transit and biking/walking efforts
Actually, I suppose that redistributing is a heavy-handed term for what you mean. I retract it. Perhaps it would be better to say that I prefer to simply cut back on these expenditures and not spend what's left.
Dan, about "extreme" forms of capitalism and socialism, you write the following:
I think we all recognize that both socialism and capitalism can be viewed as being along a continuum, yes? With the State rigidly making all decisions for every one on every issue in an extreme (and slightly perverted) version of socialism on one extreme and the Market rigidly making all decisions on every issue ("is it more affordable to dispose of our toxic waste responsibly or just throw it in the stream? Well, that's easy, let's throw it in the stream!") on the other extreme.
For what it's worth, I don't believe that a truly free market is violent, oppressive, or totalitarian.
Your answer here is quite sensible, generally -- funny how you defend socialism from its supposed perversions -- but it demonstrates that the two -ism's involve more than the question of whether the government recognizes the private ownership of property.
It's not just about ownership. IT'S ABOUT CONTROL.
If I had to, I would guess that, when you denounced capitalism in the past, you did so denouncing what you now describe as "extreme" capitalism. It's what you indicate here, in invoking unregulated markets to explain Bove's comment.
You used to use the simple, unadorned, unqualified term "capitalism" to reference a laissez-faire capitalism, a free-market capitalism, or what you now call "extreme" capitalism.
Back then, the unadorned term alluded to MUCH, MUCH more than mere private ownership: it included private control, the ability to set prices for what you sell, etc.
But, now, you use the unadorned term to refer NOTHING but private ownership, and I think the reason is obvious: you're trying to provide cover for Barack Obama's statism by making it seem more moderate than it is, by arguing that it still fits a minimalist definition of capitalism.
Since you yourself used to reference free-market, laissez-fair capitalism with the unadorned term, "capitalism," as recently as last year, you shouldn't be suprised that others still do so.
I contend that your earlier use of the term was more honest: when people either celebrate "capitalism" or -- as you do -- denounce it as oppressive and totalitarian, we generally tend to include an idea of economic freedom that is much broader than the mere recognition of the private ownership of property.
Okay, Bubba. Think whatever you want. I'll let everyone else read my words for what I've actually said.
Let me address a few things here...
First off: The Jubilee Laws were a whole series of rules about how to deal with poverty with justice and mercy. I don't see any reason to separate the two issues. In Micah, we are told...
"What does the Lord require of you, Israel? What are you supposed to do to live faithfully with your God? Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God."
Doing justice and loving mercy are part and parcel with walking with God.
If you look at the text of the Jubilee rules, you will see no suggestion that these are acts of justice or mercy. However, as you look through the Bible, you will see repeatedly over and over acts of oppression associated with unjust dealings with the poor. I'm told by those with more knowledge than I about such things that many of these acts of oppression and injustice were, in fact, likely to be related to the Jubilee rules. People were losing their land and not having the chance to reclaim it and thus stuck in a cycle of poverty. Therefore, helping these people out is NOT merely doing kind deeds to the poor, but rather a matter of working for justice with and for the poor. In looking at these passages throughout the Bible, that seems reasonable to me.
So here I give you, first, the Jubilee rules and then a sampling of the many many passages on the Bible about dealing with the poor with JUSTICE, not merely as an act of charity.
And then, I conclude with Paul's exhortation to the early church to share "that there might be equality" - more as a matter of justice, it seems to me, than mere charity.
The difference being that acts of charity denotes a hierarchy where the Better offs are kind to the Lesser offs. It is too often likely to lead to a patriarchal sort of pandering rather than a sincere search for justice, as it should be. A parent helping a child rather than a sister helping a brother. Equity, justice and mercy, but in a good sense in the proper context.
I think an honest reading of these verses and many others like them throughout the Bible - especially if you consider the historical context as best we know it - you will see that there is an ongoing problem with SYSTEMATIC injustices happening to the poor and marginalized. The Sabbath and Jubilee laws were ways to address some of these, but too often, these laws went unheeded.
The poor WERE taken advantage of by the wealthy and landed. Those in dire straits DID lose their land and judges would NOT listen to their appeals for justice. Dishonest scales were used. Interest and usury were charged when they ought not have been. Foreigners and the poor were not being treated as justice OR mercy demanded.
There were problems with mercy, certainly, but just as clearly, I think, there were problems with justice.
And yes, I think honest Christians ought to be able to agree that there ought to be concerns about distribution of resources. Paul was certainly concerned that there would be equality in resources. The early church certainly practiced sharing to make things more equal. The Jubilee laws and Sabbath laws certainly were trying to address unjust inequalities.
You are free to disagree. It seems entirely reasonable to me.
Dan, there is at least one passage in the Bible that is clear about what justice is, regarding rich and poor.
"You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor." - Lev 19:15
Justice is impartiality to both the rich and the poor. It is equality under the law.
The Bible is clear that Christians should be concerned about justice and mercy, but nowhere does it suggest that justice and mercy are equivalent.
They aren't equivalent. Were it not for Christ, God's justice would require our damnation while His mercy still longs for our forgiveness. It is only through the crucifixion that God, as Paul puts it, found a righteous way to make the unrighteous righteous.
Justice is about giving a person what he deserves, reward or punishment; mercy is about giving him what he needs, care and forgiveness.
Within the Christian church, we are supposed to share resources and care for each other, but there's no evidence that Christ or His Apostles ever intended to extrapolate this to society at-large. The voluntary sharing within God's family does not inherently justify compulsory wealth redistribution by the state.
Again, justice and mercy aren't equivalent. While the church is to be ruled (largely) by the law of love and mercy, the state is not. Paul explicitly taught that the state is an agent of God's wrath.
There's a tempting, short-term advantage to distorting our obligations of mercy by treating them as obligations of justice: it's easier to accomplish one's political ends if you can make them feel like matters of justice.
But there's a long-term cost for such political tactics: because the tactic is ultimately rooted in a lie (that an act of mercy is really an act of justice) it sours the fundamental relationship between the subsidized and the taxpayer.
Gratitude is replaced by entitlement.
I'm not sure that the whole date thing works for the experiment.
I'm also not sure that "hate" is any more prevalent now than it was from 2001-2008, or even from 1993-2000.
It's just a different side that's doing it now.
Well, I have already said that the google test is not a valid one, but nonetheless, it sure appears to me that the words hate, nazi, socialist, etc are on the rise in both numbers and volume.
Bubba said:
Justice is impartiality to both the rich and the poor. It is equality under the law.
Okay. I never said otherwise.
Bubba said:
The Bible is clear that Christians should be concerned about justice and mercy, but nowhere does it suggest that justice and mercy are equivalent.
Bubba said:
Within the Christian church, we are supposed to share resources and care for each other, but there's no evidence that Christ or His Apostles ever intended to extrapolate this to society at-large.
Okay. I never said otherwise.
Now that we've cleared up some misunderstandings, let me continue...
Bubba said:
Within the Christian church, we are supposed to share resources and care for each other, but there's no evidence that Christ or His Apostles ever intended to extrapolate this to society at-large.
As noted, I didn't say we had to. That's not an argument I've made. But neither am I saying that we can't extrapolate it somewhat to the state. That is, if I am opposed to murder for reasons of my faith, but beyond that, I think murderers should be arrested for reasons of civic justice, then there's nothing wrong with Christians doing so.
Similarly, if I support Justice AND mercy in dealing with the poor for reasons of my faith, but beyond that, for reasons of civic justice and fiscal responsibility, I support implementing poverty policies, there's nothing wrong with Christians doing so. I doubt that you disagree (but maybe you do).
Bubba said:
While the church is to be ruled (largely) by the law of love and mercy, the state is not. Paul explicitly taught that the state is an agent of God's wrath.
And yet, clearly in the Bible, there are repeated great and serious concerns about NOT TREATING the poor with justice. And I think it entirely fine for Christians and other citizens to advocate that. And, I think when policies that have often been instituted at least partially out of a sense of mercy (welfare, perhaps), there is STILL a matter of justice.
In the OT, it was a matter of JUSTICE that the Israelis observe sabbath and jubilee laws. I see nothing that you've said to suggest otherwise. I'm not saying that justice and mercy are the same, I'm saying they are linked.
If you remove matters of justice from your acts of mercy, then you have a great tendency to do weasly acts of mercy for these poor sinners, being the great publican that I am! They are not the same but they are linked, seems to me. And you can see this in verse after verse after verse after verse in the Bible, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
You are free to disagree.
Okay. I never said otherwise.
Sorry, I messed up the formatting in that previous message somewhat, hope you understand...
Dan, after mentioning the incarceration of murderers you write:
Similarly, if I support Justice AND mercy in dealing with the poor for reasons of my faith, but beyond that, for reasons of civic justice and fiscal responsibility, I support implementing poverty policies, there's nothing wrong with Christians doing so. I doubt that you disagree (but maybe you do).
I believe reasonable, faithful Christians can disagree about economic policies at this level of detail. I agree that "there's nothing wrong" (spiritually, if not prudentially) with Christians' supporting leftist economic policy.
But, earlier, you didn't present such a policy as an option for Christians. You presented it as a necessary logical consequence of Christian faith:
Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
I see no Biblical warrant for the logical necessity of this claim.
You write:
In the OT, it was a matter of JUSTICE that the Israelis observe sabbath and jubilee laws. I see nothing that you've said to suggest otherwise.
I didn't suggest otherwise, because I didn't think it was necessary, because I thought you quite EXPLICITLY rejected this position when you wrote, "If you look at the text of the Jubilee rules, you will see no suggestion that these are acts of justice or mercy."
If you're changing your tune, I will object and ask, what verses explicitly tie the Jubilee laws to justice?
I don't see what you mean by asserting that justice and mercy are linked. They are both attributes of God, according to the Bible, and they are both duties of man, but it seems to me that they are often orthogonal and quite frequently contradictory.
(A condemned murderer could be executed, exiled, or pardoned. The first is justice, the third is mercy, but the second IS NOT a full combination of both. Instead, exile is a little less than true justice and a little less than fully mercy.)
If you could go into more detail about why you think the two are inexorably linked, I'd appreciate it.
Dan said:
Christians, after all, are concerned (or ought to be) about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
Bubba replied:
I see no Biblical warrant for the logical necessity of this claim.
I think you are hearing me say, "Christians are concerned about seeing reforms leading to a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor." and hearing IN that, "Christians are concerned about seeing governmental used to force equitable distribution of resources," but that is not what I said.
It may well include governmental policies, but not exclusively. I'm just saying that generally Christians ought to be concerned about matters of just distribution of resources. THAT is the comment on which this conversation turned and I'm thinking you're thinking I'm saying "Christians MUST ALL AGREE that Gov't should be used to redistribute wealth," and that's not what I'm saying.
Just to clarify.
Bubba fairly asked:
I didn't suggest otherwise, because I didn't think it was necessary, because I thought you quite EXPLICITLY rejected this position when you wrote, "If you look at the text of the Jubilee rules, you will see no suggestion that these are acts of justice or mercy."
If you're changing your tune, I will object and ask, what verses explicitly tie the Jubilee laws to justice?
I'm not changing my tune. I pointed out that the jubilee passages never mention explicitly the words "mercy" or "justice" in describing what it was calling for. Nonetheless, in looking at ALL of the many passages dealing with matters of justice for the poor - throughout the Bible - I think it fairly clear that the Jubilee and Sabbath laws were about both mercy and justice.
It appears that these laws were often broken or ignored and it was these laws that the poor appealed to in crying out for JUSTICE.
When Deuteronomy says, "Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice," it sounds like to me that it's an appeal to the Sabbath laws, that in failing to act with mercy in setting aside land as the Law requires, an injustice was being done.
When Isaiah says, "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people," to what "rights" of the poor is he referring? It seems to me (and I've heard others with more historical knowledge say this, too) that it may well be talking about the Jubilee/Sabbath laws.
When Jesus proclaimed Isaiah's words ("I have come to preach good news to the poor...") and here, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations." these appear to be appeals to Jubilee.
And on and on.
And so, while the text of Leviticus 25 does not specifically mention either justice or mercy, I see a good bit of reason to think it's talking about both. That it may well be a matter of mercy to set aside some goods for the poor as described in the Sabbath rules, it is equally or even more appropriate to consider it an act of justice.
Disagree if you wish. I think it is quite apparent.
For a more compelling explanation on the topic that this poor soul can give, read Ched Myer, John Howard Yoder or other Mennonites on Jubilee.
You might begin here
here
here
"THAN this poor soul can give...", not "THAT..."
The United Methodist Social Principles address many of these issues. An excerpt from "The Economic Community" regarding poverty talks about a more equitable distribution:
"In spite of general affluence in the industrialized nations, the majority of persons in the world live in poverty. In order to provide basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and other necessities, ways must be found to share more equitably the resources of the world. Increasing technology, when accompanied by exploitative economic practices, impoverishes many persons and makes poverty self-perpetuating."
Dan you are right on. And there are many many Christians who see it as their responsibility to work toward a more equitable society.
It's Biblical.
"The increasingly rabid language of the nut fringe is its own proof." - Trabue
Don't look back at the left's language for the past 8-years...there's nothing to see there.
Your dishonesty is monumental, Dan.
Bubba said:
It's not whether the concept can be made to fit the Bible, but whether the Bible leads to the concept naturally. I don't think it does, and I don't think you've made a compelling argument that it does.
Then don't believe it. I find it abundantly obvious.
I'm sorry the passages to which I linked were not as good as I'd have liked. Short on time. What I was looking for but couldn't find were some actual essays or quotes from JH Yoder. He does a great job of writing about the topic. If you get a chance and are so inclined, check out Yoder from the library. The Politics of Jesus is a good one.
Whew! That Politics of Jesus is a hard read. At least for me. Couldn't finish it. I had to keep getting out the Webster's dictionary and then reading and re-reading sentences. It wasn't worth it.
But I don't think you have to get that technical and deep to understand the concept that Dan has put forth.
It's abudantly obvious to me too Dan. Very simple really and does not require a PHD to understand.
Anyone have a better resource than Yoder on Jubilee? I guess I would also recommend Myers' Sabbath Economics, but it's not in most libraries, I would guess. It's a small and extremely readable booklet, really not much more than a gathering of biblical passages and an explanation of how they connect and illuminate the notion of Sabbath and Jubilee and economics as put forth in the Bible.
Any others, anyone? Any good online sources? I know I've read some good stuff online, but couldn't find any the other day when looking.
Dan, Marty, let me be clear.
I agree that the Bible is clear that our duties include justice and mercy. I also agree that the Bible is clear that we should give of our own possessions to meet the needs of the poor -- as evidenced by the Sabbath and Jubilee laws in the OT, and by the communal sharing of the church in the NT.
What isn't clear is this, is our concern for the poor a matter of justice, mercy, or both?
Dan believes that our concern for the poor may have MORE to do with justice than with charity, writing that "it is equally or even more appropriate to consider it an act of justice," but his argument from what Scripture itself says isn't very strong.
If his position is so very obvious, don't tell me it's obvious: SHOW ME, by showing me those passages of Scripture that clearly teach that charity is a matter of justice more than (or at least in addition to being) a matter of mercy.
Bubba, I just showed a rather large sampling of biblical passages about Jubilee, Sabbath, Justice and Poverty. To me, those passages are clearly talking about justice for the poor, and justice for the poor as it relates to Jubilee, too.
I'm not sure what exactly we're disagreeing on. We all agree that Christians ought to be concerned about justice for the poor and - I don't know, do we agree that Christians ought to be concerned about just distribution of resources? If not, I guess that is where we're disagreeing, I just don't see much to disagree about.
I guess you're saying we should be concerned about merciful distribution of resources and that it's not a matter of justice? That our work with the poor is primarily about mercy, not justice? Is that your position?
If so, what do you do with the MANY, MANY passages that talk about poverty and justice? What are those passages talking about?
Off the top of my head, I know very few passages that ever talk about doing work with the poor being specifically about mercy, do you? I'm sure they might be there, but I can't think of any.
I have desired mercy, not sacrifice? That might be one such example.
Could it be that when more conservative types hear the word "justice," they tend to think of it in a rather negative sense - "God in justice is going to come and wipe out you sinners!!" - that sort of take on it? Whereas, I think for me and many like me, justice is a gracious, powerful thing, a Good to be worked for, not a horror to be avoided.
Is that part of our difference, maybe?
Hosea 6:6 is the place where "I desire mercy..." originates, I believe, and then it is repeated in Matthew twice. Matthew 12 has Jesus saying:
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.
Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
In this case, Jesus is using the word mercy, but it sounds to me like the instance is talking just as much about matters of justice. At least to me...
And, in case my comment was unclear: When I said that it sounds like it's talking about matters of justice, I'm thinking especially of " If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent..."
Condemning the innocent is not a matter of lacking mercy, it seems to me, but a lack of justice.
Dan, you didn't show any passages that connect the concept of justice to the Jubilee laws, and you didn't show any passages that connect the concept of justice to Sabbath laws. It seems you have admitted, more than once, that no such passages exist.
Instead, you pointed to passages that condemned injustice for the poor and then SPECULATED that this alluded to Sabbath and Jubilee laws, when it they could have just as easily referred to equality under the law (e.g., Lev 19:15) or some other unspecified abuse. And, you combined one passage where Jesus invoked Jubilee and another completely different event where justice is discussed -- the former from Luke, citing Isaiah 61; the latter from Matthew, citing Isaiah 42 -- and you treat the two passages as one for no readily apparent reason.
I guess you're saying we should be concerned about merciful distribution of resources and that it's not a matter of justice? That our work with the poor is primarily about mercy, not justice? Is that your position?
If so, what do you do with the MANY, MANY passages that talk about poverty and justice? What are those passages talking about?
It is my position that wealth redistribution to the poor -- either voluntary redistribution through the church, or compulsory redistribution through the state -- IS INDEED a matter of mercy rather than justice.
The "MANY, MANY" passages that talk about poverty and justice do not explicitly suggest that redistributing wealth is a matter of justice, do they?
If not, then it's entirely possible that justice for the poor simply means equality under the law -- impartiality towards the rich OR the poor, which IS how the Bible describes justice in Leviticus 19:15.
And about Matthew 12, I don't see how you can say that Jesus told the Pharisees they lacked justice, when His quoting Hosea mentioned mercy instead.
Could it be that when more conservative types hear the word "justice," they tend to think of it in a rather negative sense - "God in justice is going to come and wipe out you sinners!!" - that sort of take on it? Whereas, I think for me and many like me, justice is a gracious, powerful thing, a Good to be worked for, not a horror to be avoided.
I for one don't think of justice in a strictly negative sense, and I reject this theory.
But I do believe the disagreement boils down to a difference in definitions.
I believe that justice is a clearly defined virtue, entailing equal treatment and just rewards and punishments for one's decisions.
Justice and mercy can be distinguished this way:
JUSTICE is giving a person what he deserves.
MERCY is giving a person what he needs.
I suspect you have a different definition for justice, but I can't conceive what that definition would be. It doesn't seem clear at all.
Easton's Bible dictionary defines justice...
is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate case.
The bible.gen.nz bible dictionary gives much more detail:
The English word "justice" relates to several roots in Hebrew:
* מִשְׁפָט mishpat, the verb is שָׁפַט "rule", refers to "right rule" or to the state of rightness in society which results from a good ruler, and also to the instructions of such a ruler (esp. God), so at Am 5:15 God desires "justice set up in the gate"
* צְדָקָ×” sedaqah "righteousness", the verb is צָדֵק "be upright", refers to rightness of life (was translated "justice" often in the KJV)
* דִּין dîn "judgement", the verb is דִּין "to judge a case", is the primary root when legal issues are in view
* רִיב rib "contention" comes to mean "plead a case" (Am 7:4) the focus is on the people involved with their interests and grievances
Between them these roots express a range of semantic fields in English:
* forensic: concerned with justice and the legal system
* righteousness: to do with being "right" in the eyes of society
* governance: ensuring good rule.
The source goes on to say:
In the prophets this concern for justice (rather than more strictly legality) is most evident in what they say about the poor or oppressed. In any society some have an easier life while others are disadvantaged. In Ancient Israel widows, orphans and resident foreigners were without an effective voice in the city or tribe; while the poor could lack the economic means to survive. The prophets were particularly concerned with "justice" for these groups, and "righteousness" was less a case of keeping the rules than of assisting and protecting these disadvantaged people.
It seems to me this is saying that the Bible - especially the prophets - are talking about this Righteous living/Right living sense of the word Justice. I recognize there is the legal "getting their just desserts" definition in use sometimes in the Bible, but this one seems to be the primary way it is used, at least to me.
The Holman Bible dictionary has this to say about Justice:
The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him. As love is for the New Testament, so justice is the central ethical idea of the Old Testament. The frequency of justice is sometimes missed by the reader due to a failure to realize that the wide range of the Hebrew word mishpat, particularly in passages that deal with the material and social necessities of life.
Nature of justice: Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties. It is the standard for both punishment and benefits and thus can be spoken of as a plumb line.
Often people think of justice in the Bible only in the first sense as God's wrath on evil. This aspect of justice indeed is present, such as the judgment mentioned in John 3:19. Often more vivid words like “wrath” are used to describe punitive justice (Romans 1:18).
Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace...
Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens... wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick...
Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression...
Much more can be read here.
Good, great wonderful stuff, stated much more clearly and knowledgeably than I am able to state it. Amen!
I agree with what it says, THAT sounds like justice as I read it in the Bible.
By the way, according to at least one self-defined conservative Christian site, the Holman Dictionary is a reliable one...
"A few good conservative Bible dictionaries are Zondervan’s New Compact Bible Dictionary, the Holman Bible Dictionary, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary"
Just in case anyone might want to question the source.
For what it's worth, my conception of the difference between justice and charity isn't novel. I don't defer to Catholics on matters of faith, but they have a pretty good grasp on the seven virtues, and a Catholic encyclopedia from 1910, archived at NewAdvent.org, appears to offer a very similar definition.
Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. Of the other cardinal virtues, prudence perfects the intellect and inclines the prudent man to act in all things according to right reason. Fortitude controls the irascible passions; and temperance moderates the appetites according as reason dictates. While fortitude and temperance are self-regarding virtues, justice has reference to others. Together with charity it regulates man's intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him. [emphasis mine]
The entry continues, with a clarification that is particularly germane to this discussion.
Justice requires that all persons should be left in the free enjoyment of all their rights.
A right in the strict sense in which the term is used in this connection is not a mere vague and indefinite claim against others, which others are bound to respect, on any grounds whatever. We sometimes say that the unemployed have a right to work, that the needy have a right to assistance, and it may be conceded that those phrases are quite correct, provided that such a right is understood as a claim in charity not as a claim in justice.
To reiterate, we may be correct in saying "the needy have a right to assistance," but only "provided that such a right is understood as a claim in charity not as a claim in justice."
It is only when "the law of the land has given... to the poor a legal right to relief" does the claim become a claim of justice.
To be clear, that opens the door to the Jubilee and Sabbath laws being matters of justice, but I don't believe the Bible makes explicit that the law entails either rights or justice. Since the OT law concerned a truly theocratic state, it could well be that those laws were laws of mercy (replicated in the common sharing found in the NT church) rather than laws of justice (which are the domain of even the secular state, cf. Romans 13).
If you have a different definition of justice that would more naturally apply to giving to the poor, I would love to hear it.
I think that definition ought to be precise to avoid becoming arbitrary -- e.g., "justice is ipso facto the sum total of my political goals, whatever they happen to be" -- and they would have to be justifiable if they deviate so thoroughly from traditional understandings of the term.
Bubba said:
If you have a different definition of justice that would more naturally apply to giving to the poor, I would love to hear it.
I'm guessing you posted that before seeing my multiple definitions of Justice?
So, given my defintions and yours, you conclude (at least for now, perhaps you haven't seen mine):
To reiterate, we may be correct in saying "the needy have a right to assistance," but only "provided that such a right is understood as a claim in charity not as a claim in justice."
I side with Holman's definition and explanation over the Catholic one (although it has its points, too).
Justice involves meeting those needs.
Holman goes on to say (not quoted above):
Justice is grace received and grace shared.
What a beautiful, concise and apt definition, given all that the Bible has to say about justice.
In case anyone misses it, I have posted a more complete excerpt from the Holman description of Justice in a new post. Great stuff.
Dan, you and I were writing at the same time.
Though I think that much of what you cite is still speculative, I think I see what you're saying about Biblical justice involving "Righteous living/Right living." However, that definition applies LEAST in the arena in which you're most apt to invoke "justice" -- namely, the political arena.
"Justice is grace received and grace shared."
That makes some sense within the voluntary institutions especially ordained by God: His theocratic state of ancient Israel and His Christian church.
That makes no sense whatsoever within the compulsory institution of the secular state, since grace (i.e., love) CANNOT be extracted by force, but the government rules by force and the threat of force.
It's the same problem of applying "turn the other cheek" to the state. If "do not resist an evildoer" applies to the state as well as individuals, then no state could arrest, prosecute, and imprison even the most violent criminal.
Likewise, if "justice = grace" is applied to the secular state, the most just action is for every prisoner to be pardoned right now and set free.
I believe I've said quite frequently, Brother Bubba, that I have no wish at all to implement a church-state. I'm not suggesting that we ought to implement every teaching of the church into the state arena.
I most likely wouldn't want to have anything to do with such a church or state.
I like pancakes.
??
Dan, even if it is the case that you don't think "we ought to implement every teaching of the church into the state arena," it still appears that you believe that the state should have a pretty significant role in that wealth redistribution that you believe is a matter of justice.
I'll probably focus more on the other thread you started. Unless there's something else here that requires a response, I'd probably close my end of this particular discussion by saying this:
I think it's a lot simpler -- and, for that and a few other reasons, a lot safer in terms of preserving individual freedom -- to limit the state to be concerned with the more obvious definition of justice, which that Catholic encyclopedia defined at length, justice entailing just desserts, "to render to each and to all what belongs to them."
There's a simple explanation for why I believe that the "justice = grace" definition should have almost no place in the state.
The state is incapable of love. The government isn't God, isn't one's mother, and isn't one's father. Since the government cannot love you, it should not rule by a definition of justice that depends on love -- or, in this case, the unmerited love of grace.
I'd just like to say, because I'm obnoxious and self righteous, that socialism is not not necessarily a bad thing. It's a functional type of government that actually works better than capitalism in many ways. I think it's pretty ridiculous to put "socialist" on the same level as "nazi," which anywhere outside of Germany means "anti-Semite racist" and not "national socialist.
JUST SAYIN'
Post a Comment