Posted on 01/13/2012 12:47:53 PM PST by fishtank
This is my summary of the radio broadcast this week, Dr. McGee used the text from the Gospel of Luke to illustrate the differences between Communism, Capitalism and Christianity.
Communism: "What is yours, is mine."
Capitalism: "What is mine, is mine."
Christianity "What is mine, is yours."
Communism violates two Commandments: theft and covetousness.
Capitalism _can_ be an excuse for greed.
Christianity (i.e. truly following Christ) can be humbling, difficult, counter-intuitive, but also the most blessed way to live.
“week, Dr. McGee”
“week. Dr. McGee”
While we’re on the subject, I’ll give my definition of ‘greed’.
greed - the act of coveting what one has not earned.
Think of this definition when you hear OWS scum complaining about ‘greedy’ people who “have too much.”
bttt
Christian teacher, McGee knew what it will be like in heaven.
“On earth as it is in heaven...”
Yep.
Great point.
Communism is from the pit of hell.
So is godless capitalism ... but I can’t think of a single real example of that anywhere.....
Only with private property can charity be possible.
He also confuses things that are inherently bad with things that are inherently good. Communism is always bad, but Capitalism is inherently good, but can be used for bad. Should we shut off the Internet because it can be used for bad?
I just remembered he reserve the “What’s mine is mine” description for “godless capitalism”.
It’s too late to ask Dr. McGee for his real opinion, since he’s been with the Lord for about 23 years now.
Your summary is good, though:
“Communism is always bad,
but Capitalism is inherently good,
but can be used for bad.”
The economic system that is compatible with God-given natural rights, and God-given human nature, and Biblical justice is capitalism.
Dr. McGee has not thought things completely through. There are two and only two ways of attaining the things we need to sustain life: create and earn it, or take it from others.
Every other system than free exchange implies economic interaction based on coercion or compulsion. On that basis alone, the distinction must be clear.
And it should go without saying that a person cannot be generous with what he does not have.
Socialism is the morally bankrupt ideology that we each can (and must) live at the expense of others, something that a Christian cannot do without violating at least two of the Ten Commandments.
This is made more clear by Murray Rothbard:
“All instances of intervention, then, in contrast to the free market, are cases in which one set of men gains at the expense of other men. In binary intervention, the gains and losses are “tangible” in the form of exchangeable goods and services; in other types of intervention, the gains are nonexchangeable satisfactions, and the loss consists in being coerced into less satisfying types of activity (if not positively painful ones).
Before the development of economic science, people
thought of exchange and the market as always benefiting one
party at the expense of the other. This was the root of the mercantilist view of the market. Economics has shown that this is a fallacy, for on the market both parties to any exchange benefit. On the market, therefore, there can be no such thing as exploitation. But the thesis of a conflict of interest is true whenever the State or any other agency intervenes on the market. For then the intervener gains only at the expense of subjects who lose in utility.
On the market all is harmony. But as soon as intervention
appears and is established, conflict is created, for each may participate in a scramble to be a net gainer rather than a net loser— to be part of the invading team, instead of one of the victims.”
(from page 1126 of the pdf)
From Man, Economy and State with Power and Market
by Murray Rothbard
link: mises.org/books/mespm.pdf
NB: Rothbard used the phrase “power and market” to mean power vs principle, or exchange under coercion vs exchange in a free market. Even his choice of terms is instructive.
Christianity includes an economic system, but not one of this world.
The widow who gave the smallest unit of money gave more than all the rich men. How is that? Because she gave all she had and THAT is what was important to God.
The Lord isn’t a ten per center. He’s a whole hearted God and everything to do with him is on that order.
I might add that those who worry about giving away too much don’t realize
that God can and probably will make it up to the giver several times over.
That’s it.
I beg to differ.
Christianity in its purest form is the only true economic "system".
We fail to grasp it for its simplicity.
Dr. McGee has educated a many with his "jump in and hang on" approach.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Capitalism is inherently good. While certainly better than most of the alternatives out there today it is, in itself, a morally neutral system that can be used for good or for bad.
The key lies in Scripture. One cannot serve both God and mammon. In a society that both serves and loves God, Capitalism indeed leads to many great things. But woe to the society that embraces it with lust for mammon in its heart...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
