Is fiscal conservatism not Christian?

[Caesar517]

… That is what I think the free market can do. If only the government would get out of the way.

This sentence cannot be stressed enough.

Modern liberal philosophy says that the free market needs to be controlled and kept in check by the government. That seems like a paradox to me. A truly free market is naturally governed by the invisible hand (is everyone here familiar with that terminology?). There is absolutely no need for the government to step in and “adjust” things.

Based on the principle of scarcity and the supreme need for efficiency, resources will go where they are most effective and most needed. This means that prices can drop significantly if the government would stop trying to direct resources where they percieve them as needed. The government simply does not have the insight of the people who work in a given industry.

Modern liberalism is defaulting to the ideas of mercantilism. Conservative philosphy is much more in line with the ideas of classical liberalism.

Another point I wish to emphasize is this: The is no such thing as “free” heathcare, “free” welfare, or “free” anything that comes from the government.

What “free” [insert government program] means is that other citizens are foced to pay for it out of their own pockets (that’s where “government money” comes from).

There is a recent thread from the Ask an Apologist forums that speaks to the evils of forced charity here.

Consider this, as well:

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’

‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’

‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’

‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years’

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1 From bondage to spiritual faith;

1. From spiritual faith to great courage;
2. From courage to liberty;
3. From liberty to abundance;
4. From abundance to complacency;
5. From complacency to apathy;
6. From apathy to dependence;
7. From dependence back into bondage’

Where do you think we are now?

 

[BlaineTog]

There is absolutely no need for the government to step in and “adjust” things.

I’m no economist, but the existence of monopolies alone necessitates regulation. Monopolies break the whole system, destroying any motivation to keep prices down or offer better and better service.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There is nothing Christian about imposing a bureaucracy on the general population. This bureaucracy according to one survey I heard about takes 80% of the money. And the bureaucracy also uses force to impose itself.

In private charity, there are competing organizations that offer their services. Some do the job better than others.

But with a bureaucracy, they have the power to prevent competing organizations from offering services.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We sort of tried that in the 19th century
While the economic growth part worked well, the “rising tide lifts all boats” approach to helping the poor didn’t

The vast differences in incomes that resulted were unsustainable in a democracy

Where do you get your history?

My great-grandfather was illiterate and made his living trapping. He saved his money and bought a wagon and team and then made his living as a freighter. Then he went to Oklahoma and got a farm and sent for the family – my grandfather loaded his mother and younger brother into the wagon and drove across the prairie from Nebraska to Oklahoma.

My great-grandfather and his two boys build a log cabin and cleared the land by hand.

My great-grandfather came from nothing to prosperity – by his own efforts – in the 19th century.

Another great-grandfather was drafted into the Union Army and was discharged in Texas. He went to Louisiana and established a shipyard on Lake Charles. Another man who rose from nothing to prosperity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m no economist, but the existence of monopolies alone necessitates regulation. Monopolies break the whole system, destroying any motivation to keep prices down or offer better and better service.

Government creates monopolies – they couldn’t come into existance if it were not for government.

By de-regulating industries – like the telephone industry – we get competition and lower prices.

 

[BlaineTog]

Government creates monopolies – they couldn’t come into existance if it were not for government.

What about offering such superior service coupled with shrewd and ruthless business sense makes it “impossible” for a company to corner the market? Oh, then of course there are also situations like Middle East Oil where they can charge pretty much whatever they want.

Your assertions makes no sense.

 

[bogeydogg]

Government creates monopolies – they couldn’t come into existance if it were not for government.

By de-regulating industries – like the telephone industry – we get competition and lower prices.

Umm, not to be argumentative, but I work for the telephone company, I mean THE telephone company, and I can tell you that deregulation is what is rebuilding the telephone monopoly because when it was regulated the government seized the property of the telephone company and forced them to lease it at below cost to so-called competitors who still couldn’t stay in business.

The end result was the federal courts threw out the regulations because the government had seized private property and dictated a competitive price in a market, which based on the fact that the vast majority of competitors went out business, didn’t want competition.

It is new technologies like cell phones and VoIP which is driving competition in an organic way which the manufactured competition of the government never could.

 

[Swan]

What about corporate socialism? The kind that allows big business to run amok? Check this out:

Small Retailers Being Forced Out By Government Subsidies to Big Chains
by Sherwood Ross / March 25th, 2008

Small retailers the nation over are being pushed out of business by government subsidies to chain competitors such as Wal-Mart and Target through a variety of “corporate socialism” schemes, taxation authority David Cay Johnston says.

Municipalities are permitting “tax increment financing” that allow the big chains “to keep the sales taxes that you are forced to pay at the tax register,” Johnston said on the television interview program Books of Our Time, sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover and broadcast by Comcast.

“Instead of that money going to the schools and the fire department and the police department and the library, it is funneled through a mechanism of local government, usually a special authority, to finance the purchase of municipal bonds so that means that the wealthy underwriters and the lawyers and auditors all get a piece of this money to buy the land and build the store,” Johnson told TV host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.

The store is then leased to the big chain developer “at terms that amount to giving it to them for free or nearly free over a period of time,” Johnston said, “and it’s destroying local business.” An amazing aspect of this “corporate socialism” policy, Johnston says, “is that local business owners have not risen up and stopped this.”

“A system in which government, whether Federal or local, picks the winners in the economy, is not capitalism, it’s not competition, it’s not free market, it is corporate socialism, it is statism, it’s the state making these choices,” Johnston said.

In his new book, Free Lunch (Portfolio) Johnston amplifies this point by noting “Sam Walton practiced corporate socialism. As much as he could, he put the public’s money to work for his benefit. Free land, long-term leases at below-market rates, pocketing sales taxes, even getting workers trained at government expense were among the ways Wal-Mart took every dollar of welfare it could get.”

Continued at…

dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/small-retailers-being-forced-out-by-government-subsidies-to-big-chains/

 

[soma]

Fiscal conservatives are not Christian when they are against government programs that help the poor, but help the rich get richer by keeping their money from helping the poor.

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

“ This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. ”
His speach can be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

[Caesar517]

Fiscal conservatives are not Christian when they are against government programs that help the poor, but help the rich get richer by keeping their money from helping the poor.

The problem is that I don’t support the redistribution of wealth on moral grounds. I think it is a sin to “steal from the rich to give to the poor”, which is exactly what I think these socialist programs do. The ends (giving money to the poor) do not justify the means (forcibly taking extra from the wealthy), in my Catholic conservative opinion.

I believe these programs have the best of intentions, but are short-sighted and that they will lead to social collapse (which is very bad for everyone).

 

[ribozyme]

The problem is that I don’t support the redistribution of wealth on moral grounds. I think it is a sin to “steal from the rich to give to the poor”, which is exactly what I think these socialist programs do. The ends (giving money to the poor) do not justify the means (forcibly taking extra from the wealthy), in my Catholic conservative opinion.

I believe these programs have the best of intentions, but are short-sighted and that they will lead to social collapse (which is very bad for everyone).

Provide evidence that redistribution will lead to social collapse. Do you think Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are in a state of social collapse? (Especially when compared to that libertarian paradise known as Somalia.) BTW, Norway even has a budget surplus even when we disregard its oil revenue so saying natural resources made socialism feasible is not empirically supportable.

But the threat of social collapse cannot be dismissed. “Socialism” will not cause such a calamity, but a paucity of energy. I wonder how will humanity power a civilization that uses 15 Terawatts for the next few decades and I do not have certitude about the viability of alternative energy. Resource depletion, not redistribution is the ultimate foe of civilization, but that is another topic.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m no economist, but the existence of monopolies alone necessitates regulation. Monopolies break the whole system, destroying any motivation to keep prices down or offer better and better service.

Monopolies are created by goverment.

Consider the Post Office, the public school system, sewer and water systems and so on – all government-created monopolies. The railroads were monopolies – because the government gave them huge amounts of land which they could sell at inflated prices once they had laid the tracks.

Privately owned monopolies depend on government to protect and shelter them. Competitors find the dice are loaded against them – by law.

Many monopolies exist because of complex government regulations – only a large, well-funded business can afford to thead the maze of government regulations and comply with them.

 

[traillius]

Here is my take on things. From a financial standpoint, I am both rich and poor. I live in New Jersey, quite possibly one the most expensive places to live on the face of the earth. I receive a monthly stipend from the state for my adopted( through the state) child. Also my wife receives disability from the federal government. My child gets healthcare through the state. I own more possessions right now than most people on this planet will ever see in their lifetimes. I work and have healthcare for my wife and myself through my job. You might think I am blessed financially, and perhaps in some ways I am.But I still have medical bills from my wife’s illness, a mortgage and the ever growing property taxes. I owe state and federal income taxes every year. I have to commute spending much money on gas because the only job I can find with health insurance ( for which I pay ) is 40 miles away from my home. I have to get a part time job, the problem is so do alot of other people around me. Would it help me to receive more assistance, which by the way, the county and state say I make too much to get? possibly. Would it help if I could pay less in taxes ( sales, income, gas, property ) Most likely> The school my son attends is very gopd, and " free" to me. Except that my income and property taxes pay for it. Sure I would like to have this great school continue. But I also would like to be able to afford to live in the town. Am I rich, am I poor ( financially speaking ) Who can say, both neither… Is very complicated, the same system that keeps me alive financially is killing me financially.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here is my take on things. From a financial standpoint, I am both rich and poor. I live in New Jersey, quite possibly one the most expensive places to live on the face of the earth. I receive a monthly stipend from the state for my adopted( through the state) child. Also my wife receives disability from the federal government. My child gets healthcare through the state. I own more possessions right now than most people on this planet will ever see in their lifetimes. I work and have healthcare for my wife and myself through my job. You might think I am blessed financially, and perhaps in some ways I am.But I still have medical bills from my wife’s illness, a mortgage and the ever growing property taxes. I owe state and federal income taxes every year. I have to commute spending much money on gas because the only job I can find with health insurance ( for which I pay ) is 40 miles away from my home. I have to get a part time job, the problem is so do alot of other people around me. Would it help me to receive more assistance, which by the way, the county and state say I make too much to get? possibly. Would it help if I could pay less in taxes ( sales, income, gas, property ) Most likely> The school my son attends is very gopd, and " free" to me. Except that my income and property taxes pay for it. Sure I would like to have this great school continue. But I also would like to be able to afford to live in the town. Am I rich, am I poor ( financially speaking ) Who can say, both neither… Is very complicated, the same system that keeps me alive financially is killing me financially.

A perfect example of the adage, “We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity.”

 

[bogeydogg]

Monopolies are created by goverment.

Consider the Post Office, the public school system, sewer and water systems and so on – all government-created monopolies. The railroads were monopolies – because the government gave them huge amounts of land which they could sell at inflated prices once they had laid the tracks.

Privately owned monopolies depend on government to protect and shelter them. Competitors find the dice are loaded against them – by law.

Many monopolies exist because of complex government regulations – only a large, well-funded business can afford to thead the maze of government regulations and comply with them.

Sometimes monopolies are created because somebody just builds a better mousetrap (Microsoft) or the telephone company because small companies simply do not have the capital to invest to build and upkeep a massive system.

 

[soma]

Vern, Universal Health Care would help you and many others,we would save money, and the poor would be served. The tax would not be a big burden as my health insurance premiums.

Preventive Medicien would also become more prevalent.

 

[seekerz]

Just where does the “stealing from the rich to give to the poor” theory come from? Somebody help me understand.

If the legitimate government of a country requires taxes of it’s citizen’s is that stealing? When taxes go to prison upkeep or to pay government employees or to anything that does not directly benefit the individual taxpayer, is that stealing too?

Or is it only stealing when that money goes to the less fortunate? Does meeting the basic needs of the poor help or harm society?

Why did Jesus instruct the people of His time to “give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar” instead of condemning taxation as stealing? Even if the Romans were an occupying power, compliance with the existing law was still required of Christ’s followers, it would seem…

 

[Caesar517]

Vern, Universal Health Care would help you and many others,we would save money, and the poor would be served. The tax would not be a big burden as my health insurance premiums.

How do you think everyone would save money? The drugs cost a certain amount to produce, the machines cost a certain amount of money to operate, and the medical staff still needs to be paid. We wouldn’t all get something for free here, we would just pay for it a different way.

In fact, I think this system gives rise to inefficiency, which increases cost.

 

[Caesar517]

Just where does the “stealing from the rich to give to the poor” theory come from? Somebody help me understand.

If the legitimate government of a country requires taxes of it’s citizen’s is that stealing? When taxes go to prison upkeep or to pay government employees or to anything that does not directly benefit the individual taxpayer, is that stealing too?

Or is it only stealing when that money goes to the less fortunate? Does meeting the basic needs of the poor help or harm society?

Why did Jesus instruct the people of His time to “give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar” instead of condemning taxation as stealing? Even if the Romans were an occupying power, compliance with the existing law was still required of Christ’s followers, it would seem…

Not all taxation is stealing, certainly. We should pay via taxes the money the government needs to function. The government doesn’t need the money that supplies welfare, they just take it from one person and give it to another. To put it more specifically, they forcibly take it from one person without consent to give it to another who hasn’t earned it. This is why I think it is stealing on a grand scale.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sometimes monopolies are created because somebody just builds a better mousetrap (Microsoft) or the telephone company because small companies simply do not have the capital to invest to build and upkeep a massive system.

They can only do that with government power.

Microsoft is not a good example, since while they are highly successful, they are not a monopoly. Microsoft has used laws to enhance their position, however, through contracts requiring computer manufacturers to put Microsoft Windows on all their computers – note that the Government enforces these laws.

Similarly, the FCC has given telephone companies unfair advantages – for example, you cannot use a cell phone on an aircraft – not because it affects the navigation instruments, but because you reach so many antennas the cell phone system can’t tell tell you are “roaming.”

As for lack of capital – the signature of modern capitalism is the joint stock company. Very small businesses can sell stock to expand. A good example is Martha Stewart, who incorporated and went public, and became a billionaire on the first day her stock went on sale.