Lutherans and Socialism

[James S. Rustad]

In my understanding, the production and consumer prices are controlled by the community or the state. Socialism does not have to be controlled by the government. A farmers co-op that controls production and prices is socialism.

Once again, Brian, words have meanings.  A farmers' co-op is nothing more than a organization with investments from its members.  Each member profits in proportion to their investments.  Hmmm...  Sounds more like capitalism to me.

Noun   1.   co-op - a jointly owned commercial enterprise (usually organized by farmers or consumers) that produces and distributes goods and services and is run for the benefit of its owners

[Steven W Bohler]

The Scandinavian countries And some countries on the European continent have had, for a long time, a relatively homogeneous population, and a reasonably good, sometimes booming economy. Furthermore, they have virtually made the decision to pay the high taxes, realizing what it gets them. Education through college. Healthcare. Employment security. Special benefits for children and people in special needs.
And of course, they are dealing with much smaller numbers in terms of population than we are.
What has always bothered me, even from an early age, is the fact that we in this country have enough resources to provide proper care for people in special needs and for the population in general, for instance, with regard to healthcare. We have, sort of, done a reasonable job with public education. But what if we done for healthcare? What have we done to provide the kind of support that people in dire and persistent poverty need? What have we done and retraining the unemployed for work with their previous industries no longer exist? What have we done for working mothers, especially single mothers?
What are we done in providing non-college vocational training?
It's foolish to think we will give up free market capitalism as a basis for this country. But it is insane to look at efforts to provide needed help to our fellow citizens and get all bent out of shape because we fear it might be "Socialism."

Of course, these countries can do these things because they rely on the US to provide military protection.  That frees up a lotta moola.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler:
Of course, these countries can do these things because they rely on the US to provide military protection.  That frees up a lotta moola.
Me:
Well, tell me who is mad at Sweden or Norway or Denmark? We have a national interest in helping our NATO partners. Do you want to put them in danger from the Russians, like your guy, the Ex?
And we could save a whole lotta moola if we didn't waste money on defense spending by building planes we don't really need, ships we don't really need, and over-paying the favored defense contractors for all kinds of things.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Bohler:
Of course, these countries can do these things because they rely on the US to provide military protection.  That frees up a lotta moola.
Me:
Well, tell me who is mad at Sweden or Norway or Denmark? We have a national interest in helping our NATO partners. Do you want to put them in danger from the Russians, like your guy, the Ex?
And we could save a whole lotta moola if we didn't waste money on defense spending by building planes we don't really need, ships we don't really need, and over-paying the favored defense contractors for all kinds of things.

Yeah, I really want to put them in danger from the Russians.  Come on, don't be stupid.  But what is your problem with asking them to pay for their own protection, or at least a more reasonable share of it?  Why do you think it is the responsibility of Americans to not only risk their lives but also money to defend others (from the Russians OMG!) just so those other nations can have more to spend on themselves?  Maybe THAT'S why they are so "happy".  Because they have found a way to have their cake and eat it too.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Bohler:
Of course, these countries can do these things because they rely on the US to provide military protection.  That frees up a lotta moola.
Me:
Well, tell me who is mad at Sweden or Norway or Denmark? We have a national interest in helping our NATO partners. Do you want to put them in danger from the Russians, like your guy, the Ex?
And we could save a whole lotta moola if we didn't waste money on defense spending by building planes we don't really need, ships we don't really need, and over-paying the favored defense contractors for all kinds of things.

Yeah, our guy, the Ex, really honked off our NATO allies so that one of them, France, recalled their ambassador, the first time that they have done that in decades. (First time ever?) Oh wait, that wasn't "our" White House Occupant but "yours."

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler:
Why do you think it is the responsibility of Americans to not only risk their lives but also money to defend others (from the Russians OMG!) just so those other nations can have more to spend on themselves? 

Me:
Because we support freedom. Because they are our friends. Because we have pledged to do so. You don't like it? Lobby for new treaties. Or do you favor us walking away from our commitments?

[Terry W Culler]

Pastor Bohler:
Why do you think it is the responsibility of Americans to not only risk their lives but also money to defend others (from the Russians OMG!) just so those other nations can have more to spend on themselves? 

Me:
Because we support freedom. Because they are our friends. Because we have pledged to do so. You don't like it? Lobby for new treaties. Or do you favor us walking away from our commitments?

We support freedom, but as John Quincy Adams noted, we are guarantors only of our own.  Germany doesn't bother to guarantee its freedom by keeping its promises of military spending.  It lies over and again and we buy it.  Our allies are not our friends, they are nations which have a national interest served by allying with the US.  If their national interest is not met by standing with us, they don't.  We often seem to be the only people who are expected to be johnny on the spot whenever they need something.  If Europe has no interest in effectively defending itself against Russia--a country which is weaker than those which make up the EU, then I'm not sure why we should be expected to take up their defense.  For all of Putin's obnoxious bluster, the likelihood of his actually doing anything is very low.  We pledged to assist a weak Europe from an aggressive potential enemy, neither situation continues.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter's phrase:
'...imposed by the coercive power of state that is contrary to liberty."

I ponder:
And just what is this "coercive power"? Passing laws? Federal regulations on such things as safety and health? Any kind of taxation, especially on businesses and industries? Exactly how is this "coercive power" exercise?
And "contrary to liberty". What kind of liberty? To whose liberty, the liberty of people with money? We all want some "liberties"that are not good or healthy for our neighbors.
If one chooses to reside in this country, is one not voluntarily accepting how this country decides it will order itself?

If you can't tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can't do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
If you can't tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can't do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

I comment:
No, you are wrong. You could emmigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.  You could move. People do it all the time, I hear. Nothing forces us to continue as citizens of the United States. But so long as we are citizens, we are obligated to obey its laws and we owe it our proper loyalty.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
If you can't tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can't do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

I comment:
No, you are wrong. You could emmigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.  You could move. People do it all the time, I hear. Nothing forces us to continue as citizens of the United States. But so long as we are citizens, we are obligated to obey its laws and we owe it our proper loyalty.

Do you honestly see no difference between the coercive power of the state and voluntary collective action? You genuinely can't tell whether you're making a voluntary donation or paying mandatory taxes? If so, you are a nincompoop. The fact that you say I am obligated to follow the laws gets at the truth. I am obligated, and they will coerce me into prison if I don't. The state coerces obedience. Nothing else can. That's every state, by definition. That's why the state should be kept strictly to it's necessary functions. Coercion is a necessary evil that is best minimized, not maximized.

[Dan Fienen]

Peter writes:
If you can't tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can't do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

I comment:
No, you are wrong. You could emmigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.  You could move. People do it all the time, I hear. Nothing forces us to continue as citizens of the United States. But so long as we are citizens, we are obligated to obey its laws and we owe it our proper loyalty.

I suppose in the same way laws that restrict abortion are not coercive. People who want less restrictive laws could always move to States or even country with laws more to their liking.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Peter writes:
If you can't tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can't do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

I comment:
No, you are wrong. You could emmigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.  You could move. People do it all the time, I hear. Nothing forces us to continue as citizens of the United States. But so long as we are citizens are obligated to obey its laws and we owe it our proper loyalty.

As citizens of a constitutionally based democratic republic, we have the option, right, and privilege to organize politically and elect those govern and make and enforce the laws in accordance with the Constitution.  That includes the right to oppose by our constitutional processes (including the elected federal legislative branch and POTUS, and the constitutionally appointed SCOTUS) the attempts by other citizens to impose socialist obligations and structures upon us.

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
That's why the state should be kept strictly to it's necessary functions. Coercion is a necessary evil that is best minimized, not maximized.
Me:
Can you explain the "necessary functions" of a state, preferably our Constitutionally governed state?

[pearson]

No, you are wrong. You could emigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.
 

As soon as Pr. Speckhard is done explaining the "necessary functions" of a state (and I'll bet his list is even longer than my fingers-on-one-hand list), could I ask you to direct me to a contemporary political state where I won't be coerced by the governing authorities if I emigrate there?  Thanks.

Tom Pearson

[peter_speckhard]

Peter:
That's why the state should be kept strictly to it's necessary functions. Coercion is a necessary evil that is best minimized, not maximized.
Me:
Can you explain the "necessary functions" of a state, preferably our Constitutionally governed state?

Yes. The state necessarily defends the nation, protects individual rights, regulates international trade, etc.. Your problem is that you make everything all or nothing. If the state legitimately does x, then y is a legitimate function of the state. To argue against y is to argue against x. Either statist totalitarian rule is theoretically acceptable or else pure anarchy is necessary. The idea that the government must govern, but that a government governs best that governs least is lost on you. We should be trying to minimize forcing anyone to do anything while doing so firmly when absolutely necessary.