No, I don't know of any GOP like that. I know people usually chose their own lot in life. Most people that are poor, chose to be there. You don't just happen upon wealth, you need to earn it. And if you win the lottery, you need to earn to keep it or you will be poor in no time. Inaction leads to being poor.
I would have to say that and low expertise in anything that makes money are some of the biggest reasons that explain material wealth disparity, but that doesn't mean it's all moral. Big Land Renters are immorally rich; they don't deserve to be, and corporations that use oppressed labor in China also don't deserve to be nearly as profitable. Poor people are on average much more impulsive I'd say, than other income classes, but with the economy the way it is currently, it's getting harder and harder for even ordinary people to not be poor.
Once they control you, as if you were a programmable robot, you would still have the capacity to disagree, which is something that cannot be taken away. It is fundamental to human nature. I don't think natural rights imposes any sort of obligation. Some refer to not committing force or fraud as an "obligation", but an obligation implies an action which one must perform. Not doing something is not an action.
Socialist is backed by violence. There is no other way for the state to extract the means of support from the populace. All of the European states rely on central banking and fiat currencies, which can only exist by threat of violence against those who would use alternate currencies and attempt to set up their own free banks. Not that it is any different in most other nations, but to say that the police powers of government are not violent is fallacious. Government exists by violence. It has no other way to obtain obedience.
Who is the person making the decision what everyone else needs? Jesus doesn't define this, for good reason. The only way to force this upon others is by violence, and Jesus eschewed violence. So no one owns themselves? They belong to the collective? Again, explain how that idea fits with scripture. Each individual, according to Jesus, must come to God in his own way. I don't think the collective can make you do it, even by forcing you into a prison cell or labor camp.
Jesus was a supply-sider. The rest of the story is found here. It is worth the chuckle. http://www.bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html
No, it is obviously anachronistic to talk about Jesus and Socialism. Jesus also often stayed out of politics entirely, and focused on a personal and spiritual morality. However, what I can say, is that the values of Jesus are antithetical to the values of capitalism. Capitalism rewards the most productive, and the people with the most capital are valued most highly by a capitalist system. So basically what I am saying is no, Jesus was not a socialist, as that is anachronistic to even talk about. However, his teachings are clearly opposed to values of capitalist societies.
'pay that which belongs to ceasar' that means pay ceasar so he can redistribute wealth through the roman government for the poor which is socialism.
Jesus gave freely and encouraged charity, but I don't believe he ever demanded others pay for what he consumed.
the Bible doesnt mention capitalism by name, it does speak a great deal about economic issues. For example, whole sections of the book of Proverbs and many of the parables of Jesus deal with economic matters.
What "work" would that be? "Compensated" by whom? And in what way? I would call that a confused invention by yourself. Yes. It does. Socialism is a non sequitur with regards to Jesus and his time. Jesus was ostensibly a carpenter and his disciples were fishermen, a tax collector, etc. The economy of Jerusalem was agrarian and craft based and bartering, to a large degree, was used by the common people. The notion of socialism, in any context, is nonsense. Or are you not familiar with the Roman empire and how it worked? Can you perhaps cite it? That would help. Where is this socialist utopia? In our hybrid socialist society many people draw money (from the productive) whether they are, themselves, productive or not. Try and tie receiving government assistance to the idea of earning (somehow) your gift and people will condemn you as a heartless right winger. On the other hand the apostle Paul told the early Christian church goers in Thessalonica that those that do not work should not be able to eat. Of course he had no way of imagining a society where money would be taken from workers to support those that would rather not.
The US was founded on the basis of folks who wanted to escape the tyrrany of religion that existed at that time. Maintaining freedom from this tyranny is one of the primary ideas in the constitution.
Jesus and the disciples were not compensated. They went into a town and depended on the hospitality of those persons who had the where with all to provide them with lodging and food. You don't often get that off of people with nothing. Capitalism has it's bad points to be sure. Jesus was apolitical. But it is capitalism that has provided the freedom for people to live as they choose. Socialism puts the power in the hands of a few of the elites greedy and the rest of the population languishes. Capitalism means more people can and will prosper to their ability and desire for success. In capitalism, if a business does not do its customers right, they go out of business. Those that do care for their customers are successful.
Created yes. eh, people don't deserve freedom if they're gonna (*)(*)(*)(*) society up. You can disagree all you want, I don't care
I think apes have the capacity to consciously disagree with you paying zoos to imprison them for you and your kids' entertainment. Yet I doubt you care. See? This is about PERSONAL PREFERENCE. ok, that doesn't mean that anyone "should" or "should not" respect anyones' "rights". It means that they can, if they want to.
Not a socialist, rather I'd say he was individualist anarchist of an ardently altruistic and pacifist nature.
No. Same Jesus. Don't see the "anarchist" thing at all! In fact the more I think of it the more absurd it seems.
