Did God intend for individual human beings or our government to be the stewards of His gifts?
capitalism
n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital
[syn: capitalist economy] [ant: socialism]
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]
"Note that the lexicographer believes capitalism and socialism express opposite concepts, that is, these words are antonyms. In practice, most assume neither extreme capitalism nor extreme socialism can be made to work.
This suggests that one the objects sound economic management is to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, but I think that is the wrong conclusion. Such a notion transforms what should be ethical decision into a mere management decision. It allows “experts” to decide what more appropriately should decided by the ordinary citizenry.
What we citizens must do is define and live by an ethical concept of ownership.
Did God intend for individual human beings or our government to be the stewards of His gifts?"
HT: Citizen Tom
11 comments:
"Did God intend for individual human beings or our government to be the stewards of His gifts?" A very difficult question and one that cannot be adequately answered in this small space for it has been debated for some time. I believe all are accountable to God as stewards of His gifts,individuals and government alike. In this country we are free to choose. The government, in it's way, aids in alleviating chaos, which allows stewardship to take many forms. There are some government programs that have value others that do not. None of this is perfect. I have a LONG list of things for which I KNOW have to be changed. But unless I take the initiative to be the individual steward and work where I live things cannot change. We must start with the little to make the big change. And when things don't go as WE wish they would we must not be discouraged. We must continue to move onward. We have too many who have gone before us who have struggled with this and have shown the courage to carry on. So I have rattled on long enough. See, there is NO real Answer. We must struggle in prayer as God's stewards in light of the government. Cathy
After I finished this, I wondered, "What if this was a rhetorical question?"
Cathy, you made some excellent observations, some of which have crossed my own mind many times. This begs me to note another profound question such as the one posed in the post: If man is given a mind and free will, and the mind is so strong and creative that it can learn about such things as stem cell research and performing abortions, does that mean that since God gave us the means to develop such scientific/medical technology that He condones it? This is just an example, but in matters such as this, Christians are debated all too often with this "excuse" for what others CHOOSE to do. The Government is comprised of human beings, and therefore, are also accountable. The Bible makes no divergence in class or station in life ... ALL are accountable under the Word (The Bible) of God, and therefore, are ASKED by God to be stewards of His gifts. The twist on all of the above is that man/woman, by the very nature of their God-given free will, will find a way to dodge their accountability and responsibility if that is what they ultimately intend. We see it every day. It is man who is taking God out of everything. Government? It begins with the people who elect the governmental authority; the people ARE the government. Bottom line? All were intended to be stewards, but by free will, many are lost or have lost sight of life's purpose.
Don't feel you need to apologize for being long winded; it's hard to answer this in brief, and I believe I've said enough, too!
Blessings all,
Abbey
Good question (and thank you for the link)! Let me try my hand at an answer.
Here are two almost contradictory answers that reach the same conclusion about the role of government.
1. Consider this proposition. The question indicates a common misunderstanding of the role of government. The question arises because we confuse an effect with the intent.
While government does have some responsibility as a steward of His gifts, these responsibilities are largely incidental. We need government for one specific purpose, to protect each others rights.
When we abuse His gifts, we abuse each other. In doing so we show contempt for each others rights. Such happens when as individuals we fail to be good stewards.
Consider a simple example. What happens when a factory or a city dumps its wastes in a stream. The stream becomes polluted. As the result of pollution, both the people downstream -- and anyone else who might have an interest in the stream -- lose their rightful use of it. Then to protect individual rights, government must act. The polluter must be punished and make redress for damages.
2. On the other hand, we may consider the question dead on. Instead of asking what government does, let's ask: what are His gifts? Jefferson spoke of rights endowed by the Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the steward we have assigned to protect those rights, government's role is essential. No other task we can give government can be more important than protecting His gifts: our life, our liberty, and our ability to pursue happiness as we learn to serve as His hands and feet.
I have enjoyed these comments way more than most posts I read out there in cyberspace! Great points and thoughtfully said! Thanks guys.
Peggy
Unfortunately, "Socialism" is one of those buzz-words that no longer has any meaning to me.
We are not, nor ever will be, a Socialist country.
Sometimes I think people just use the word to try to scare other people, which I find annoying. Sometimes, I think they just use the word because it's easy. And sometimes, I think they use it because they aren't sure what they are really trying to say.
I am not sure which (or any) is the case here, but I do know we don't have a Socialist country, nor will we ever.
How's THAT for a non-comment? : )
Katherine - Socialism has a specific meaning, and the definition is provided above. In fact, our government has grown relatively larger as compared to the private economy. Moreover, the private economy is much more highly regulated. Given the proposals of the current administration, it seems like socialism does not have any meaning to you because you don't want it to have any meaning. That suggests an unhealthy amount of denial.
Anon, the problem is, people throw those terms around as much as they do "liberal," "conservative," "progressive," "sweet as pie," "mean as a snake," etc.
What do they all have in common? They have become subjective cliches, and new ways to pigeonhole and insult others.
If you took away most of the social programs, you would have ignorance, poverty and crime. Why? Because we can't depend on the good will of private citizens. Why? Because most people don't have enough money or interest to help the disadvantaged, and the people who do have the money are often billionaires who are out to take over the financial world, buy gazillion dollar yachts and make us all serfs, including small to medium businesses.
Social programs help protect smaller business by making sure that doesn't happen to any of us. They increase productivity by helping the disadvantaged become fully integrated into society and what you would call the "free market."
And...oh my gosh...the horror....social programs can actually help people.
I'm not saying we should allow people who use social services to not take responsibility for their actions, to commit fraud or depend on services for the rest of their lives if they are capable to live independently. But I am saying people need help in their lives and often times can't get it. We live in a wealthier area where it's easier to ignore the have-nots. And local charities can't be expected to help the whole state or the whole country.
I speak from personal experience and experience from knowing others. I have struggled a good part of my life and the only help I ever got was from social programs like WIC and temporary food stamps. There WERE no private charities out there for me (especially because I lived in a poor area) and you cannot FORCE people to be charitable. You CAN help ensure, however, that people aren't starving in the streets.
Think of poorer nations where there is no centralized government and an aristocracy that doesn't care. Charities work all over those countries, but people die by the millions and the illiteracy rate is staggering. Do we want that? Are you trying to say avoiding paying a small extra tax or taxing the rich more is worth risking falling into those conditions as a nation?
Even if you come from a religious context, "Thou shalt not judge." We make too many assumptions about the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the uneducated, etc.
Balance....it's all about balance.
Katherine - Did you prove that the term "socialism" is a meaningless buzz-word or that you like government-run welfare programs?
Please note that a socialist state is not necessarily a welfare state. One just usually leads to another. What you have done is admit that we already have a welfare state.
Instead attacking terminology just because it makes you uncomfortable, please go back to the drawing board.
1. Define the problem.
2. Propose alternative solutions.
3. Compare and contrast the merits of each of the solutions.
Then consider this. The reason you had trouble finding private charities is that government has displaced most of them. Once government starts providing a charitable service, people stop contributing to competing private charities.
Government-run charity is not the only solution, and it has awful problems. For example, the Federal Government has no charter to provide charity. You can find the word welfare in the Constitution, and that is it. Charity provided by the Federal Government is just an unconstitutional scheme to buy votes.
As bad as poverty may be, tyranny plus poverty is even worse. And tyranny is where we are headed. When politicians can refuse to recognize Constitutional limits, instead of being our servants, we become their servants. When that happens, the economy becomes all about them.
Tyrants don't have to buy votes.
I wasn't attacking. I was simply noting the word use.
It wasn't meant as an offense. It's merely my opinion.
Anon
This is typical of Katherine. When someone challenges her or asks her to clarify her thinking, she simply says "oh, you don't understand" or "that's not what I said" but she will never clarify.
Mrs. Gotthardt has never had to live in poverty. She has never had to live in a shelter or go to the church to ask for help. She goes to the government and begs for money.
Too bad you know so little of me but speak like you do.
Until you have walked in someone else's shoes....
Post a Comment